As I said ... I don't know whether his new contract puts him among the top 25 earners or not. I've already admitted that. But I still don't think it's a massive issue, because I trust the men in control to get these things more or less right. I'm not sure what kind of nightmarish impact you think this is going to have at Wigan, but clearly those in charge of Pryce on a day-to-day basis, and those in charge of balancing the club's finances, don't share that view. Now, you may disregard that as another "the coach is always right" argument killer, but all I'm saying is that, on recent evidence, I'm quite happy not to wet my knickers over something so unimportant.

But while I admire your ability to quote verbatim from the rulebook, Dave, I'm less impressed by your inability to respond to my main gripe, which was your immediate and completely unfounded accusation that this was an IFL decision not a Maguire/Wane decision. Now, I've admitted that I may be wrong about Pryce being a cheap option. Are you prepared to admit that you may have been a bit hasty in lumping the whole of the blame for this on IFL? Or, failing that, are you at least prepared to admit that you have no evidence for such a conclusion?

Dave, you say 3 seasons at the club but lets be realistic, Pryce has had two seasons at the club. His first he was injured for the entire time, which whilst it may be used against him, was hardly his fault.
In his two years Pryce has played mainly in the reserves failing to break through, then managed to get a run in the first team before being dropped again. He also had an excellent try scoring record.
In his two years playing first team, Ainscough broke through into the side, had an excellent try scoring record and then was dropped. In his second season he failed to make the squad based on pre season performance, managed 1 appearance before being dropped and was poor on loan at both Cas and Widnes.

You've stated that you would have preferred Ainscough to stay, what makes you think he deserves it more than Pryce?

As for the argument about the salary cap. Perhaps Phelps is earning more than Pryce, Lenegan could only afford to keep one. Keeping Phelps takes away from the money left over to pay Hock's wages when he returns, so he keeps Pryce. It's hypothetical, but no one actually knows for sure.
The club will have already budgeted for the full spend on the cap, so perhaps keeping Pryce and taking the club up to the limit and ensuring we have some more cover in the backs was a sensible one?

No the crux of my argument is anyone justifying the signing of Pryce because he may earn little is missing the point of how the salary cap rules work.

So it is everything to do with the rules.

Dave

I wouldn't hold your breathe!

PS

Why should there be "Blame" for this resigning?
When needed, the guy came in last year and did IMO a Pretty decent job in his 10/12 appearances. Unless another youngster isn't getting a chance because :-

A/ Pryce is being paid too much money so there's none left (I sincerely doubt but as you say no-one other than a certain few at the club can assess that, but for me I'm guessing he's a pretty good cheap option. And I would guess better vlue for money back up squad player than a lot of other clubs have).
B/ Pryce is getting picked unfairly ahead of a Youngster without Warranting it (Which would be a slight on Madge/Wanes selection policy which I can't see there being an argument to say they have been unfair with any player). Meaning said Youngster moves on elsewherewhen the Club didn't want them to.

Then I don't see what the problem is? At least the scapegoat merchants can focus all of their efforts in 1 direction rather then argue over who's to blame for any defeat or mistake by the club.

PS

18/24 months ago I argued with a Sintelliner in Brisbane that in 2 years Wigan would be right up there at the top of the RL pile because they had at last learned how to show patience and allow youngsters to come through at their own place because the Club were building a "Squad" of players that meant Youngsters would be given a chance when it was the right tome, not because we had to play them!

I also wrote on a thread 12 months ago that our squad had far more "Strength in depth" than at any time for the past dozen years or so. Given the current salary cap situation give me a a Good squad of 25 players with maybe only 1or2 standout players than 6or7 standout players and only 17 front line/good enough players.

The Likes of Prescott/Pryce/Goulding/ even Hansen/O'Carroll/McCollorum/Mossop/ & Currently Farrell fall into this category for me, players who may not neccessarily make a starting 13/17 if everyone fit but over the course of a season will more than play their part if we are to have a Good season.
Just like last year!

Hi all,
This is my 1st post on here so be nice , Some of you may remember me from my previous profile as The Rooster. It's good to be back
I believe that the re-signing of Deacs for another year is a big bonus for us next season as it allows us so many options around the halfs.
I have read the thread over & do agree with both sides of the argument regarding Price, I didnt mind him re-signing for another year as its a position in the squad covered. I remember a couple of seasons ago we was praying to be in a position like this where every single position within the squad had ample cover. Now we're here we find ourselves arguing over a player taking a squad place, Not starting 13, a squad position, and how refreshing it is to see imo. It just shows how good a state our club is in at present & I for one hope that if called upon, Price will do a job for us.

So are you suggesting it would be better to go in with 24 front line players?

I may be being thick, but surely if the coaches deem hit good enough to be in the top 25 players, and the money men can accommodate him without damaging the squad, breaking the wage structure or rules, the whole should he be a top 25 player is irrelevant.

If you do not think he is good enough fair enough, but I fail to see really what relevance this entire top 25 issue has, assuming we have not broken any rules to sign him for a further year, which under the live system I assume we have not as we would not be able to register him if we had.