Havent heard anything about him this off season, was he OOC and has he signed a new deal?

His contract is up as we speak but nothing has been said by the club about his future one way or another as yet. Personally I think he will be released as we have youngsters like Stefan Marsh and Josh Charnley who are on the brink of first team football and play the same positions as Pryce

Cant think of one reason why we would keep him to be fair.

I think he still has something to offer the team, but the lack of news about him is pretty ominous.

For me he's got to be kept. We've put lot of money and resources into the lad and to just release him and possibly waste all that would be a real shame. If he were the difference between us signing another useful addition to the squad next year then I'm sure he'd be shown the door, but the likelihood is he isn't taking up much cap space so probably isn't the difference between us signing another player.

Plus for me his performances have always been decent enough, yes he looks lethargic and lazy but that's just some players style. We've also got to remember that in the not to distant future both Carmont and Gleeson will retire, and the more options and choices we have for replacing those two the better.

Making a well reasoned post about Karl on here?

You're doomed mate.

In regards to how much we've put into him - are we seeing a significant improvement in Karl Pryce to justify keeping him at the club? From my POV, I think we should cut our losses. I haven't seen any gradual improvement from Karl Pryce in his time at the club to warrant keeping him. I feel we have far more promising players at the club who can in the future takeover Carmont & Gleeson - Marsh, Charnley and Goulding prime examples. Also for me, he doesn't just "look" lethargic - he is. Darrell Goulding this season has completely shown him up. One example of this was when Darrell Goulding had a dead leg all strapped up at Leeds and played on & Karl Pryce hobbled off against Saints with seemingly very little - certainly nothing like what Darrell Goulding played on with.

Karl Pryce was a gamble by Ian Lenagan and IMO it hasn't payed off & we should cut our losses.

Goulding has done his job very well this season, but Pryce has scored his share as well. As for the injury example, unless you have the medical detail to hand, im not sure how you can make that statement.

Errm, he's big !

If keeping him will hinder the development of Charnley, Marsh etc then get rid IMO. No room for sentiment.

Absoulutely no point keeping him, Charnley is already better than him.

It's like having a tree on the wing.

Agreedhe is very bone idol and young Charley will do a better job

I think the fact the club told us about Phelps going but not Pryce might suggest something is going on with regard to Pryce. Maybe there negotiating the terms of his contract as a pay per play or something tricky like that.

The club hasnt said anything about Phelps I dont think? From what i've seen it was just what he put on his Twitter and Wigan Evening Post made a story about it.

I just don't see the harm in keeping him on. If by not renewing his contract it would enable us to bring in a new player then by all means let's to do it. But if that's not the case then he might as well be kept. I'd rather we kept him then let him go and bring no one in, as you never know we may need him down the line, it's our squad size that im my opinion gives us the edge over our nearest rivals.

As for stopping the development of players such as Marsh and Charnley, ultimately it's Madge's decision as to who he selects and play's, which as we've heard from the Maguire himself is determined through how hard the players train during the week. If Pryce is kept and then selected ahead of Marsh for example it'll be because of Karl's hard work. Not because Lenegan is forcing Madge's hand to play him because of the investment the club have put in him as some have suggested on here.

He's a monster in defence. He converts all the walk in tries that our other wingers score.

But we both no there is no comparison between the two and that my original statement still stands. Darrell Goulding is now a Grand Final winner and is facing the Aussies in Australia.

I don't need the medical details it's self evident. Darrell Goulding had a dead leg that was strapped up against Leeds and he played on. IIRC Karl Pryce fell over one of his own players and ended up hobbling off. He then went to play for the U20's the following week. The point is with Pryce there seems that lack of determination to battle on, I'm not advocating playing with injuries as such, just he does seem very injury prone - imagine had he been playing in the final against Saints and that had happened.

But how long do we keep throwing good money after bad? If we retained him for one season, and he is in the same position then as he is now, do we keep him again because we have put even more money and resources into him. Surely there comes a point when we have to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough.

I think he has been very lucky to be retained as long as he has and to get an extra year at the end of last season. Last season I did wonder how much of it was Lenegan trying to save face after some of his comments about Pryce and the amount of money spent on him. In my opinion he hasnt shown anywhere near enough improvement this year to again justify another year. If we do keep him I certainly think it will be because he is cheap and seemingly no other club wants him.

He takes up cap space and a spot in the make up of the 25 man squad that could be used to promote another youngster or simply allow us to be flexible in the market should any player crop up mid-season such as Martin Gleeson. Even should we get him on less than 25K he would still end up taking some of the pot that is left for the young lads who don't count on the salary cap (I think that's how it works). I think Karl Pryce needs to have justified being kept on. I wouldn't just sign him up for the sake of it, which seems to be the argument you've put across to me. Our squad depth is healthy enough - we wont miss Karl Pryce. I think signing him up would be the first action that goes against the new managements whole ethos of hard-work and determination to be the best that gets you a place in the 17 and a Wigan RL shirt.

For instance, if one of the three Charnley, Marsh & Pryce had to go which two would you retain as the better prospects for Wigan's medium to long term playing squad?
I would retain Charnley & Marsh!

More than likely, FT, but that's not the question is it. We have space for him so there's no harm in keeping him. It's also not like we don't have a ton of youngsters in the first team, or on the fringe of the first team.

The new regime has always gone on the basis that you earn your place in the squad. If Pryce performs he'll play. If he doesn't then somebody else will. It's as simple as that.

After letting Phelps and Paalasena go it would be a big blow to your u20's to lose Pryce as well.

We will just promote a few U18's instead, by the way how is Kevin Penny coming along?