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?

Bearing in mind our investment so far, I think we should keep him until 2025 and then move him into the second row as by then we will probably need cover for 2 games per season.

Just the opposite: King & Russell are both far better wingers.

Very true.

He's been absolutely critical to the titles they've won.

If Feka and Phelps were deemed surplus to requirements - then Pryce must be!

Agree totally. He's been seen at Odsal a couple of times so could be looking to move to Bradford but if we do keep him I can't see him getting much game time meaning he's a waste of cap space. Any faith I had in Pryce improving his attitude disappeared when he 'hobbled' off against Saints. Time for him to go and let another club waste their money on him imo.

Pryce hasnt even had a bad season. If Ainscough had had exactly the same season he would be playing at Wigan in 2011.

IMO he will never be a regular first team player though. He's a good squad player to have and just because he's not from Wigan or didnt come through the academy doesnt mean he wont be useful to the squad should we get injuries.

Players like Marsh and Charnley I can see going on loan because those are the ones we want to see getting regular Super League action, not just covering for injuries every other week, then going straight back into the reserves once Pat or Amos or Sam etc recover.

don't agree with you but your sig is quality so I'll let you off

You are right the club has put a lot of money and resources into him. Far more than he deserved given his contribution to the side so far. I don't think he has done anything to warrant more money going in his direction when there are young players coming through.

As to the salary cap people need to get away from this notion we can pay players peanuts. Whatever he earns he will have to be one of the top 25 paid players because if he is not then his wages would come from the small £55K pot of money set aside to give young players a few games. So of we paid him say 30K that would mean he would be preventing other younger players accessing that pot of money as we would only have £25K left for any of them to get a few games of SL.



The thing in his favour is Richards injury. That might get him another year but I would certainly have kept Ainscough before him if we needed cover. Unfortunately Ainscough had already done the deal with Bradford before the GF so KP might have had some luck on his side there.

The other problem with KP is his age in that he doesn't qualify for the under 20's so would take up one of the three overage places in that side - again getting in the way of other players.

So when you look at how keeping him on affects the club in terms of salary cap, and under 20 places etc then the only way he should get another deal is if he was, given his age, a player at the top of his form and a genuine contender for a first team place. He isn't and I don't think any club can keep persevering with players in their mid twenties (he will be 25 next year) who have yet to establish themselves in the side on merit.

Dave

Ainscough can't defend for toffee. That's why he's been allowed to leave.

I suppose the coaching staff told you that personally? Or is it just your opinion? His so called defensive frailties are way over stated and Ainscough is already a better player than Pryce.

Dave

Was Pryce even playing in the Under 20's come the end of the season? Dont recall seeing him in the playoffs or Final at KR.