Don't come here stateing the bleedin obvious..... Will confuse people.....

Hang on a minute. The poster said we should fire off players when they reach 30. I think that is plain daft. Things like performance, fitness and current ability should take presidence over age when deciding whether to keep a player at the club. Getting rid of a good player who consistently performs simply because he happens to have turned 30 makes about as much sense as a bag of frogs.

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?

Is true... But read what Bridger wrote... Is not as cut and dried as you might think either... Truth is that MM will probably be making the decision.

It used to be said that "You never get a pension at Wigan", We need to keep it fresh... BTW I'm a massive fan of George Carmont.... Been our most consistant player for some time..

Actually I think the point I'm making is very cut and dry. You don't get rid of a good player just because he turns 30. I'm not talking about anyone in particular here.

Surely the wage and the rest of the team must come into play though!



I would not want us to sign Lockyer or a player like that now as it would hold back Sam Tomkins but in the situation we are in now, Menzies or an old prop to play in our young pack would be perfect, signing players is so situational you cannot just make comments like "oh we should sign such a person" or "he is too old we cannot sign him".

Who mentioned anything about signing? I thought it was keeping howd or getting rid we were talking about.

Same thing. The only difference being the player has played for the team before and may fit in better, you must still consider all the same things.

So you agree to throw someone out purely based on age is insane?

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.

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.

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?

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 [iwhen the time is right [/ibut 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.

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.

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.

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.

If Graham does become available then we must try are best to sign him the guy is one of the outstanding players at this moment in time and I would rank him up there with Morley this year as the best prop in the competition.



If like the rumours state that wire are also after him and they do in fact manage to sign him above us then then it'd be a big blow for us not managing to sign him and an even bigger blow for saints after loosing him in the first place.

And he is English... Young.... Would be a massive blow to Saints especially if Eastmond should go to. If i was a Saints fan i would be gutted if these two were to leave.



EDIT: If i was a Saints fan i would end it all...

I know reading on the Saints board that many are worried that with there current financial state the club may return to the dark old days of having to sell all there best players to keep the club afloat.

Apparantly, Graham was asked on the street in LIverpool by a fan if the rumours were true. He replied that if the rumours were true, why would he kiss his badge after the grand final and that hes a saint for life.



He could be lying of course and in any walk of life, money talks and given that we are skint, who knows!

In the words of the sergeant major in "It ain't half hot mum"............ "Oh dear... how sad... never mind..."