I'm not overly enamoured with Mathers however, if anyone is going to get the best out of him, surely it's Tony Smith.

If his features are anything to go by, prehistoric.

i'll be very disapointed if this is true, and even more disapointed if the press release doesn't refer to him as poor richie mathers.

I am firmly in the didn't want Gleeson to go Camp. He is a class player and whenever he gets the ball he can create something.

If it is true that Gleeson was seen as a distraction from the PC days, then Tony Smith would be showing his real managerial qualities if he had kept him and turned around peoples perception of Martin.

This is bad business for Warrington Wolves.

I am very disappointed at Gleeson going in exchange for Mathers + cash.

Although in the back of my mind, I have faith in Tony Smith and maybe he has something up his sleeve that we are not yet privvy too.

Smith may also have seen things in Gleeson (off field antics) that he dosen't like and is not prepared to put up with as other coaches have...

According to todays League Express Warrington are being persued for a six figure sum for back taxes by HMRC.

well thank Ian Lenaghan for paying it for us then......

I think your thinking Tony Smith to be some kind of magician - Mathers doesnt catch the ball. Simple.

He was going at the end of this season anyway - FOR FREE. How anyone can say £100k + Mathers is bad business is beyond me. He hasn't exactly set the world alight has he.

Also, you can bet he was the biggest earner at the club so that's a huge chunk to spend on someone else.

He did at Leeds. Simpler.

Wasn't this discussed last week us along with Saints Leeds and another club due to a end to a loop hole in tax laws regarding overseas players. I doubt that would be the reason we are letting Gleeson go.

I agree with what was said by Tony Catsmith



Along with one of our cheif try assister

Because Mathers is gash and doesnt improve your side. You have 2, possibly 3 better fullbacks.

Who?

Hicks is better for sure. Readon probably and at a push Riley. Certainly 2 though.

But what about the £100k and the salary he is freeing up silly?

If rumours are to be believe then Reardon wont be at the club for much longer.

Also if you would have attended the Harlequins away game a few weeks ago you wouldn't be so quick to offer up Hicks. He is competent there but never a natural full back. He is a much better winger than full back. Then that leaves Riley and Mathers to fight it out. Which is why we have brought him in.

I'm pretty sure ten clubs were referred to.

Give me peace. 8 tries in 2007, 11 tries in 2008 and none this season????

If anyone gets that title Hicks is one of our guaranteed try scoring weapons.

If you think Gleeson warrants the salary he must be earning I think you are deluded.

hicks is a better winger than full back, reardon in all likelyhood wo'nt be here much longer, and as much as i like rileys enthusiasm, i don't think he's a full back, no matter how much he wants to be. so even with my dislike of richie mathers, lets see how he goes in a new team/system, there was some talent there...once. maybe just maybe there could be again

So?

That doesnt mean you just sign any old random turd player that doesnt improve your side. I'd almost go as far as saying I'd prefer a straight 100K than 100K + Mathers because at least then you'd have 100K plus some more cap space to sign someone.

I can see Mathers commanding much of a salary, can you? I appreciate whatever he is being paid, eats into the cap, but Gleeson will free up a hell of a chunk.

would you say 40K is a conservative estimate? That could be 40K towards luring a quality player that suddenly becomes available.

I would say that is a fair allowance. Conversely, if we are getting another fullback for half the salary of the one who may be being released. You can follow the logic. This will effectively bring us back to parity with Gleesons salary.

How about this

FB Mathers
Wing - Hicks, Riley
Centre from - Johnson, Grix, Bridge, King

No need to spend on a replacement centre?