Which props would you have signed that would have been a marked improvement on what you've got though? Not that many have changed clubs that would have made a great deal of difference and didn't Carvell price himself out of a deal with you?

Wigan did try to sign Carvell (they actually thought they had got him) but then wouldn't get involved in a THIRD upping of the price, and left the auction.

The way Carvell priced himself out of the deal if correct (upping the price several times) is one issue but the signing of Gleeson for a six figure sum shows players are available for the right price.

They don't have to be out of contract. Fielden wasn't.

Dave

You make it sound criminally negligent by the chairman. Yet look at what you're actually saying: we've got 5 props, but they're not working out so we need to buy more.

Where does that mentality end?

If you've got underperforming players, you don't keep on buying new men for that position, with more and more men sitting in the stand.

He inherited a situation where we had 5 props on contract. At least two of those props are, or recently were, international standard. Surely it's a better option to try to get the coach to bring them back to form rather than spending money on yet more props?

To call it a stubborn attitude is one way to look at it, but you could also call it's a realistic appraisal of a difficult situation.

Very true Cruncher.

It gets to the stage were you have to make the best out of what you've got. If so called less talented coaches like Kear can do it with players who have never reached the heights the likes of Fielden have then why can't Noble?

Wigan is a team that is majorly underperforming for the players it has. IL can't keep getting new ones all the time and sooner or later it’s going to be the coach that has to leave.

I think that’s one a lot of people can agree on

The stadium fiasco is a memory that will live in the mind of wigan fans for a long long time.The biggest name in rugby league made to play out of thier own county by the ex owner still gets on my nerves now.

On the playing side, there isnt really much he can do, he took on the contracts when he took over the club. I await next season when several players contracts expire and the end of the current season.

The big mistake he made was the Stadium cockup last season, moving us to Widnes for the play off game will stick long in peoples memories.

Aldo he mentioned in the most recent fans forum that it was his fault that they did not get the fixture to the stadium management in time to book the GF spot this season.

No, but either the club needs to want to get rid, like Gleeson, or you need to unsettle the player enough by offering them a big wage packet. I think Leneghan is trying to get away from that way of working though.

Didn't you also allegedly enquire about Moore too?

Correct. What else do you want us to do? Stick with the 5 under performing players for the duration of their contracts and say Ho-hum when the pack gets battered yet again?

We either try and loan out one or two of them or if there is (as I believe there was) room under the cap, we get an extra prop in and simply drop the worst of them. Then when that players contract is up it isn't renewed.



What do you mean "more and more players"? A single top class prop would make a great deal of difference to the side. I'll say it again but if not signing Phelps, Roberts and Smith meant we could have signed a prop thus leaving Fielden in sat in the stands that would have been good business.

Such a move is not against any rules. It is perhaps a bit radical but so what?



But that has failed and so the alternative is what?



The situation is our pack problems have not been sorted out and action needs to be taken. This is not a new problem either but instead of addressing it, IL has presided over predominantly the recruitment of backs. I guess that is why his failure to sort out the pack is leading the poll that started this thread.

Dave

Players can only be sent out on loan if they're prepared to go - so it's not as simple as you make it sound.

Also, I'm not convinced that Phelps and Smith's wages combined would have given us enough leeway to sign a top-class prop. Not if you're talking top class in the realms of Webb, O'Meley etc. Combine Roberts' wage with that, and maybe ... I agree that signing Amos Roberts may have been hasty, and thus far hasn't seemed to pay off. But I'm not sure that a prop of Carvell's standard would have been so valuable to us that I'd be happy to see our back division shortened by 3, including a speedster like Roberts.

All that said and done, in a salary capped world I think it'd be bordering on the silly to sign another prop, giving you a total of 6, when, at the very most, the coach only seems inclined to field 3.

The real problems with our pack seem to stem from Fielden being finished before his time and Feka showing a complete inability to get fit. Sorry, but in that respect these problems come more from the previous administration than the current one.

You cant just loan or get rid of players, you need someone to take them off your hands, we got lucky with Mathers, as only a team coached by smith who got the best out of him and knows what he can do would have taken him on recent form.

This is not an option with fielden as nobby is here!

But lets say for instance Bradford would take fielden back.
1st you have to convince them to pay him the same(which you would have to be stupid to do) or he wouldnt go and just sit out his contract, i know i would.

Maybe IL has got something in the pipe line, quite a few big earners are off contract this year and i cant see bailey or coley getting another contract. So perhaps we will sign a prop who can do a bit.

And as for fielden, what club in their right mind is going to offer him a contract on anything near the wage he is supposed to be on.

Quite frankly if i were a chairman, i would be offering about 40k a year for him. As i would be shocked if prescott and o'carroll are on that much (between them)

Are we talking what should of been done or what is possible now?

It's quite clear now we can't just sign another prop and sit Fielden in the stand but the point I was making was if we had not over-recruited in the back we probably could have and that is a reason why the is leading the poll.

Dave

Pack weakness for me.

I dont see how players not performing is IL's fault.

Granted i wouldnt have signed Phelps (although i do like him) Robberts or Riddell over a Stand off to replace Barrett, however we did sign a former Daly M winner who was predicted to do big things before he became unwell.

However we seem to have a trend where players are underperforming here and i cant blame IL for that! I think it comes down to attitude and coaching to be honest.

In a perfect world i would let go

fielden (tripe),
coley(never rated him),
bailey (doesnt do enough for the supposed brass he is on),
phelps (quite like him but dont want him holding anyone back),
robberts (vialeki Mk II),
pryce (I cant put into words how much i dispair of this lad)
and smith (to many problems to ever be what he could have been)

Sign a stand off, two brasters for the front row, and a full back, and let pat go back on the wing and promote a mossop to a bit more game time.

However its not a perfect world and we are stuck with the pack we have like it or not.

If for instance next year we still recruit backs then i will be complaining with the best of them! (thats you dave )