[DaveO]

Re: Greenwood confirmed : Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:44 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote: Full salary cap regulations from page 256 - 323. http://www.rugby-league.com/operational-rules/#p=256 Thanks for posting the link. I was going to search for it myself but I had to do some work ( ). A quick skim of it (so I could have missed something) says Tomkins and Williams cost £100K on the cap but to do so must be being paid £175K or more to qualify as marquee players. There is the club trained player rule that ought to tot up to a £100K dispensation for Wigan but I could not see or have missed the long service allowance Lockers is supposed to have but I am pretty sure it does not apply any more. I think we'd get the £15K player welfare dispensation as well. So based on that we have a cap of £1.825m + 0.1m + 0.015m so £1.935m. £200K of that allowance goes on Williams and Tomkins so that leaves £1.735m spread across the remaining 23. So an average wage for them of just over £75K each. As the Sky TV money is supposed to cover the £1.825m then the club must find £110K plus at least £150K to cover both Williams and Tomkins marquee wages and it's probably more than that. Even so in the grand scheme of things the extra money required for these wages is not great given the club turns over something like £4m. If the club has financial constraints is more likely to be costs associated with coaches, admin and other charges though that said given who the 23 other players are I think quite a few are on too much money! There are some pretty junior players in that group as well as some average players and bar about four of them I struggle to see who is worth a six figure salary and I suspect we have more than four who are on that kind of wage.

Rogues Gallery wrote: Full salary cap regulations from page 256 - 323. http://www.rugby-league.com/operational-rules/#p=256 Thanks for posting the link. I was going to search for it myself but I had to do some work ( ). A quick skim of it (so I could have missed something) says Tomkins and Williams cost £100K on the cap but to do so must be being paid £175K or more to qualify as marquee players. There is the club trained player rule that ought to tot up to a £100K dispensation for Wigan but I could not see or have missed the long service allowance Lockers is supposed to have but I am pretty sure it does not apply any more. I think we'd get the £15K player welfare dispensation as well. So based on that we have a cap of £1.825m + 0.1m + 0.015m so £1.935m. £200K of that allowance goes on Williams and Tomkins so that leaves £1.735m spread across the remaining 23. So an average wage for them of just over £75K each. As the Sky TV money is supposed to cover the £1.825m then the club must find £110K plus at least £150K to cover both Williams and Tomkins marquee wages and it's probably more than that. Even so in the grand scheme of things the extra money required for these wages is not great given the club turns over something like £4m. If the club has financial constraints is more likely to be costs associated with coaches, admin and other charges though that said given who the 23 other players are I think quite a few are on too much money! There are some pretty junior players in that group as well as some average players and bar about four of them I struggle to see who is worth a six figure salary and I suspect we have more than four who are on that kind of wage.

[DaveO]

Re: Greenwood confirmed : Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:04 pm  

P-J wrote:

My point is that due to Salary Cap exemptions (that we argued for) we're paying significantly more than every other SL team on wages. Only one man is footing that bill. I'm don't fault him for reigning in the purse strings.

See my previous post about the breakdown of the money. The bill IL must foot for players wages is IMO comparatively small given Sky pay all the £1.825m basic cap outlay. I do think we are overpaying some players but given we spend to the cap it's more likely to be the likes of Sarge, Isa, Powell and even players like Clubb and Flower who are not exactly SL's best props.

However I am not sure why you don't fault him for reigning in the purse strings whoever gets paid what. If he is having to do so it means either he isn't rich enough to bankroll the club (and let's face it you do not buy an RL club to make money) or the club can't raise enough revenue (including not enough from sponsorship) , or it's a combination of both. These issues fall at his feet and no one else's. If the club needs circa £2m to run a team and under his leadership it can't raise enough to pay that out, that is an issue he is responsible for. Lack of revenue.

Most clubs have more than one wealthy benefactor. More than one Saints director has according to their accounts "loaned" the club substantial sums of money so one thing IL could do is stop trying to run the club on his own and look for other directors willing to invest. Not a bad idea if he can find some who bring some expertise the club could benefit from. If he does not want to do that and wants to keep the club to himself but is no longer prepared to bankroll the club, then he needs to pull his finger out and increase the revenue and sponsorship.

I don't care where the money comes from but as a Wigan fan I expect the club to be able to pay top wages to attract the best players it can (which we all know isn't RL stars so I mean the best actually available to it) so if the chairman is having to reign in the purse strings given Sky pays most of the players wages anyway I have an issue with that.

Re: Greenwood confirmed : Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:27 pm  

Bigredwarrior wrote:

Give over. The early part of the season when we were scoring tries for fun down our left edge, they all started with Williams. Either a burst of speed or a cracking pass to put Faz or Gildart away. He may not have been on top form all year but to say he’s been p@@s poor is miles off and massively unfair.

You must be watching something different to me.

He has been poor; his play is slow and predictable, quickly runs out of ideas, can’t organise to save his life. He’s miles away from the player he was pre marquee status.

A few instances of a cracking burst of pace when the defender fails to read the obvious play in front of him is hardly evidential of good form.

Re: Greenwood confirmed : Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:33 pm  

100% Warrior wrote:

You must be watching something different to me.

He has been poor; his play is slow and predictable, quickly runs out of ideas, can’t organise to save his life. He’s miles away from the player he was pre marquee status.

A few instances of a cracking burst of pace when the defender fails to read the obvious play in front of him is hardly evidential of good form.

You’re right, we must be watching something different and if you read the post, I acknowledged his form isn’t great. That said, you described him as pi$$ poor which is miles off!

Re: Greenwood confirmed : Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:10 pm  

Some people are desperate to crucify Williams because he’s on marquee money. Yes he’s up and down and there’s times he needs to do more and play with a cooler head but he’s a supreme talent. There’s responsibility on him to get more out of himself but there’s also responsibility on the coach to play to his strengths and give him the best possible chance of shining. I don’t think Wane does that and the club as a whole need to take some responsibility for the mess which the scrum half position has become over the past few seasons. That’s hurt him as well and it’s hurt the team. It desperately needs sorting in the off season.

Re: Greenwood confirmed : Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:00 am  

Part of the issue is the word ‘marquee’. That’s simply a name given to allow a SC dispensation. Let’s face it, if he was genuinely marquee he’d be in the NRL. Some people seem to expect him to suddenly be at JT’s level.

Wigan could have done 2 ways, we can offer him the money & acivate the marquee contract to allow us to spend more elsewhere or he could have gone to Warrington.

Warrington are the prime example. Roberts has come over on marquee status, after 12 months he’s now going home as he couldn’t settle. He’s a decent SL player & nothing more than a steady Eddie in the NRL. I know which I’d prefer.

Williams, although comparatively experienced is still young in half back terms and still has plenty of improvement as he matures. Richardson at St Helens is a fair comparison and I expect will follow a similar pattern if they stick with him. When Williams first became a regular he played with the freedom Richardson is playing with now. As he became more established over a couple of seasons he went from impressive youngster to having the pressure and expectation to perform week in week out which is a different ball game. For the 1st third of the season (no coincidence when the pack was dominant) he returned to that kind of form. Yes he’s dropped off over the past month or so but so have the rest of the team.

In summary, leave the kid alone, he’ll come good again unless of course the fans kill his confidence completely.

Re: Greenwood confirmed : Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:10 am  

Trainman wrote:

Part of the issue is the word ‘marquee’. That’s simply a name given to allow a SC dispensation. Let’s face it, if he was genuinely marquee he’d be in the NRL. Some people seem to expect him to suddenly be at JT’s level.

Wigan could have done 2 ways, we can offer him the money & acivate the marquee contract to allow us to spend more elsewhere or he could have gone to Warrington.

Warrington are the prime example. Roberts has come over on marquee status, after 12 months he’s now going home as he couldn’t settle. He’s a decent SL player & nothing more than a steady Eddie in the NRL. I know which I’d prefer.

Williams, although comparatively experienced is still young in half back terms and still has plenty of improvement as he matures. Richardson at St Helens is a fair comparison and I expect will follow a similar pattern if they stick with him. When Williams first became a regular he played with the freedom Richardson is playing with now. As he became more established over a couple of seasons he went from impressive youngster to having the pressure and expectation to perform week in week out which is a different ball game. For the 1st third of the season (no coincidence when the pack was dominant) he returned to that kind of form. Yes he’s dropped off over the past month or so but so have the rest of the team.

In summary, leave the kid alone, he’ll come good again unless of course the fans kill his confidence completely.

I don't disagree with much of this, but the bit I've underlined is plain daft.

George will have no one to blame if his career continues to stagnate but himself.

And 23 is not young in halfback terms. Look at Sam Tomkins. By 25, he was starting to slow down a bit. Andy Greg and Shaun E were already established names by 23.

George is a talent, but he needs to start getting it right very, very soon, or he risks becoming yet another of these talented kids who never made it as an adult (though he will be rich, which is one thing I suppose).

[DaveO]

Re: Greenwood confirmed : Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:25 am  

Trainman wrote:

Part of the issue is the word ‘marquee’. That’s simply a name given to allow a SC dispensation. Let’s face it, if he was genuinely marquee he’d be in the NRL.

Not sure why you think that. As the cap rules tell us for him to be a marquee player he must be being paid at least £175K and I'd guess it is probably more. By paying such a wage to a player who was what, 20 or 21, at the time he first got it we were able to beat off the NRL interest and the reason we could is even with their big salary cap advantage even they don't fling silly money (in their books) at junior players. Even they have their limits and that is why he didn't go, not because of lack of genuine interest in the first place. Doubt they would be interested at the minute.

The trouble is he now has the salary of a player who you would expect to be exerting the influence if an Edwards, an Andy Farrell or a Lockers on games. All of whom were doing so at 23 and he isn't.

As to Warrington and Roberts, who cares if he has not lived up to his status and is off early? Nearly all our former players who went to the NRL came back early. Sometimes it just does not work out but I don't see what Roberts situation has to do with the question of whether Williams is currently good enough and worth the money. At the moment it looks like both Wigan and Warrington backed the wrong players for marquee status.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but using it it looks like we might have been better letting him go to the NRL and it might have been better for him as well. Had he gone he'd have been a junior player over there without the expectation placed on him here because marquee is not just a name to allow a SC dispensation but it is instead supposed to be a way to get a top player in your side, not a work in progress.

Re: Greenwood confirmed : Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:44 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Not sure why you think that. As the cap rules tell us for him to be a marquee player he must be being paid at least £175K and I'd guess it is probably more. By paying such a wage to a player who was what, 20 or 21, at the time he first got it we were able to beat off the NRL interest and the reason we could is even with their big salary cap advantage even they don't fling silly money (in their books) at junior players. Even they have their limits and that is why he didn't go, not because of lack of genuine interest in the first place. Doubt they would be interested at the minute.

The trouble is he now has the salary of a player who you would expect to be exerting the influence if an Edwards, an Andy Farrell or a Lockers on games. All of whom were doing so at 23 and he isn't.

As to Warrington and Roberts, who cares if he has not lived up to his status and is off early? Nearly all our former players who went to the NRL came back early. Sometimes it just does not work out but I don't see what Roberts situation has to do with the question of whether Williams is currently good enough and worth the money. At the moment it looks like both Wigan and Warrington backed the wrong players for marquee status.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but using it it looks like we might have been better letting him go to the NRL and it might have been better for him as well. Had he gone he'd have been a junior player over there without the expectation placed on him here because marquee is not just a name to allow a SC dispensation but it is instead supposed to be a way to get a top player in your side, not a work in progress.

I say that because there seems to be an assumption that the so called marquee status should be used to sign superstars.

I prefer reality, the top players in the world are on circa £500k per season. A SL club would have to significantly top that to tempt them over here. I used Roberts at Warrington as an example as they had to use the marquee status to sign a bang average Australian half, he’s a good player but never what anyone would define as marquee.

Wigan has a choice, they made the right one imo in keeping GW. To do so and to limit his salary cap value they used the marquee dispensation.

People need to get over this idea that we can sign anyone from the NRL that is genuinely a marquee player unless a club is lucky enough and prepared to take a gamble on players like Barba.

I find it very odd that, as a Wigan fan you seem to think we’d have been better off letting a top (by SL standards) young, home grown half go so we can sign a NRL also ran.

Re: Greenwood confirmed : Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:12 pm  

I’m not saying GW is an awful player but since his marquee status he has been absolutely bang average to p*ss poor bar a few games here and there.

Is it coaching? Possibly. Or is it that teams have figured out his hip, skip, jink and dummy? Being completely honest I’m leaning towards the latter rather than the former.

When GW broke through SW was the coach and he was exceptional, we panicked and gave him marquee status. A wage rise was definitely in order but marquee? Since then, even with an actual half decent #7 in Matty Smith at his side he has been going downhill.

If a player has marquee status earning marquee wages he better damn well earn it on the pitch. We’ve had players in the past earning a fortune from us who haven’t performed at all bar a few games (Amos Roberts, Stuart Fielden for example) and they were slated on these forums. Why should GW be any different? He shouldn’t. He’s just as open to criticism as anyone else, more so in the fact he’s on the wages he is.

It’s not his fault he is on those wages, I mean if I were him I’d have taken it like a shot, as would any player! But he hasn’t justified it whatsoever since he was put to marquee. He is the one that has to justify his marquee existence, that’s not down to SW or any other coach for that matter. Its firmly on his shoulders to consistently perform to a marquee standard or else the next contract negotiation will go the way that Sam Tomkins’ just has.

Someone mentioned that we’re targeting GW (or suggested similar). Again, if you’re a marquee player you make yourself a target and open to criticism. It comes with the territory I’m afraid.