Re: O'Carroll signs for Hull : Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:36 pm  

DaveO wrote:

That aside, just which players do we guarantee first team football to? I thought it was a meritocracy here and O'Carroll would have as much chance of getting a go as any of the other props.

He wanted to leave. It was entirely his choice. Simply by re-signing at Wigan he would have been in contention for a first team place but HE decided he had to move elsewhere.

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

Re: O'Carroll signs for Hull : Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:43 pm  

DaveO wrote:

So you think if we signed Thomas, Dudson and Flower that will help season ticket sales? Really?

If we signed any player on the basis of how many season tickets they'll shift, we're signing them for the wrong reasons.

Re: O'Carroll signs for Hull : Wed Sep 07, 2011 5:49 pm  

DaveO wrote:

That is just your warped response to anything I post that disagrees with something the club does these days. If you bothered to look you will find plenty of positive acknowledgement from me about IL's tenure at the club but you don't want to see it as that doesn't suit your argument.

Given some people are arguing in favour of these so called signings and making a case for them are they slitting their throats as well? We all know they have not signed yet (and may not even do so) but are debating the merits one way or the other if they do. That is blindingly obvious I would have thought.

Give it a rest with the "fool" comments. If you can't construct an argument without resorting to that sort of snide comment you ought not to bother.

That aside, just which players do we guarantee first team football to? I thought it was a meritocracy here and O'Carroll would have as much chance of getting a go as any of the other props.

It happens to be my opinion he is worth a place in our squad more than any of the players rumoured to have been signed. That is not some way out of left field position given the players being mentioned as our new recruits.

I'm sorry, mate, but you just seem to be cheerleading the anti-IL campaign.

I don't think much of the Hull guy we've been linked with either, but all this - not to mention the Gareth Thomas stuff last week (good grief!) - reminds me vividly of the OTT stuff we got from you when Ainscough was leaving.

Sorry, but I can't help it if I feel IL is doing so many things right that I can overlook the occasional error (Does that really mean I'd jump in the canal if he told me to?) We currently hold three trophies, and still have a chance for two more this season. And yet at one stage last week, you actually compared him unfavourably - with Maurice Lindsay!!!

On the subject of O'Carroll, my understanding is that he WASN'T guaranteed first-team action and that was enough to make him decide to go elsewhere. Now, if that's true you tell me where the club were at fault. I can't see how they were.

Re: O'Carroll signs for Hull : Wed Sep 07, 2011 5:58 pm  

Wigan28/Leeds18 Andy wrote:

If we signed any player on the basis of how many season tickets they'll shift, we're signing them for the wrong reasons.

Worked wonders for HKR with Mason.

NOT.

Re: O'Carroll signs for Hull : Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:07 pm  

Im not surprised in any whatsoever. [in fact its what i would have done in his position]
Good luck to him. I am sure that he will flourish, but that we will replace him with equal standard.

Re: O'Carroll signs for Hull : Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:05 pm  

DaveO wrote:

No, that isn't my beef.

It never ceases to amaze me how people will do down a player to suit their argument. According to Madge, O'Carroll has worked his backside off to get fit and put himself into contention for games and now he is fit he is just as much a member of the squad as any other player. The fact he has been missing for 18 months is no more relevant to his future worth to Wigan than the fact Hock has been missing for two years. Both are in the past.

My beef is that for some unknown reason we have signed (supposedly) four players who if I had come on here three months ago and said lets sign any one of them YOU would have been in the queue dishing up the ridicule. And to sign those players we will have restricted our ability to offer O'Carroll a suitable deal because they won't be playing for free.

Given in my opinion none of them are good enough and O'Carroll is easily good enough for our squad I don't agree with signing that lot if it meant losing O'Carroll. The two events are related in my opinion.

As I said if I had come on here three months ago and said lets sign any one of them YOU would have been in the queue dishing up the ridicule. Especially Thomas.

I think some people would jump in the canal if IL said so!

Dave what has a 24 year old O'Carroll ever done other than offering a supporting role? He is 24. and other than being a grafter brings very little to the table. We have 2 lads coming through who have real potential and along with these lads could improve our team and will certainly improve our squad depth.

O'Carroll was not guaranteed first team rugby and rightfully so his performances have not warranted it. At 24 are we supposed to guarantee a player who has not deserved it first team rugby at an inflated price to retain a non crucial squad member?

Regards the transfers I am not going over my thoughts on Thomas that has been done. The other 3 guys are clearly as I have stated on another thread signings from a very weak market this year but all offer far more potential than O'Carroll long term and in the case of 2 maybe all of them the short term too.

I will bet you know Lauaki and Flower go on to be regarded as more useful players than O'Carroll within their first year at Wigan, and I also expect O'Carroll will prove to be nothing more than a player fighting for a 4th choice rotation prop at a team fighting it out for the lower spots in the top 8.