We have played him in a number of positions over the past couple of seasons and he's done reasonably OK but does seem to have settled into the FB role very well indeed. I still think Paaaaat is our best full back, but leaving Phelps in the FB role is not much of a backward step and gives Paaaaat a wider dimension to his game. Phelps just needs to get those high balls sorted so he catches them instead of letting them bounce, whereas Paaaaat needs to go find a new pair of kicking boots.

Quite pleased to hear this news

. I think that given more time now he will become even better. He is only young and Rads has obviously made a difference to him already in a short space of time.
He still has a slight problem with the high ball but that will come. For me even though hes a quota player the extension he has earned is well deserved, you can also tell he loves the place and gives everything every week. Keep up the good work Phelpsy

DaveO wrong again, what a suprise.

Hes young, hes good, likely to get better, hes willing to put his body on the line for Wigan and hes cheap.Whats the problem here?

Logical move by the club.

1 yr contract to fill til Briscoe comes back??

Forget about Briscoe.

The only person I hope the club is concentrating on to be the next fullback is Josh Vievers.

And Josh could well be our best fullback since Radders. The way he plays reminds me a lot of his Dad and with the help he is now getting from Radders he could well be the next GB fullback for many years to come.

Well he is 24 so this is hardly what I'd class as a young player who still needs to be learning the job but the problem is obvious and one I have mentioned time and again every time Phelps name has come up in the "lets give him a new deal type of thread"

I will spell it out again.

Phelps is both a quota and none federation trained player. Re-signing Phelps means we can sign one less such a player to strengthen the side.

What we should do IMO is simply let Phelps leave and move one of Roberts or Richards to full back. That would then free up his none federation and quota spot so we could could sign one of these high quality overseas players IL is on about.

If we don't let him leave we must look to the UK for at least one of the two players IL says he is looking for.

[uDo you want to re-sign Phelps and strengthen the pack with someone like Darrell Griffen from Huddersfield?[/u That is what it boils down to in my opinion.

Also if we want to sign another overseas player having retained Phelps then Carmont must also leave.

So what do you want? Phelps at full back and Griffen type player to "strengthen" the pack or one of Roberts or Richards at full back and a high quality forward from OZ in the pack?

Signing Phelps means one UK player and one overseas player with Carmont out of the door as IL's two high qulaity sigjings. I suppose we could be lucky and our one UK player be Myler but we still need to lose Carmont if we sign another overseas player if Phelps stays.

When you look at the whole picture the cost of retaining Phelps in terms of signings it allows us to make is far too great for a player of his ability IMO. He is not world class and not good enough for such compromise with the rest of the squad to be made for a player of his standard.

Last season we signed Roberts and he took up a none federation spot and quota spot (we had to get Carmont a Samoan passport to get him off quota to fit Roberts in). Signing Phelps is doing exactly the same thing. Signing Phelps means we reduce the options to improve the side just as signing Roberts did. Phelps just like Roberts takes a quota and none federation trained player spot.

I have been saying this for months now whenever discussion has come up. I don't accept people are too dim to understand the implications of re-signing him for the rest of the squad so I am baffled at the support for this player.

Dave

Hobby. Horse.

Facts.

Dave

Therein lies the best advice to Wiganers posting on here.

No Phil Bailey leaving makes no difference. The problem with Phelps is he is a none federation player as well as a quota player.

Bailey can apply for none federation status [uat the end[/u of his current deal but Phelps can't.

The number of none federation trained players we can have is reduced to 6 for 2010.

They would be with Phelps retained:

Feka, Richards, Riddell, Roberts and Phelps.

Five players (three of which are quota) and we can only have six none federation players. So we could actually re-sign Bailey as he will only count on the quota and we will have two quota slots free for 2010. Phelps counts on both quota and none fed lists and that is why retaining him means we could only sign one more overseas player on the assumption Carmont leaves.

If Carmont stays we can't sign any overseas players because Carmont while off quota is also a none fed player so we would have the full compliment of 6 none fed players.

Dave

You often accuse me of inventing things to support my opnions. Check out the above.

I actually agree with you that Phelps, being quota, is someone we can no longer really afford to accommodate. But the first point you make here is a scare story that doesn't necessarily correlate with Phelps staying. It might, but it's not a given.

Regarding the second point - sometimes you just have to accept that if a guy is playing well and is clearly determined to make a shirt his own - especially a difficult shirt to fill, like no. 1 - then instead of moving others players around in order to justify releasing him, it might be simpler and more beneficial just to keep hold of him for another year.

As I say, I actually agree with the jist of your argument. But don't be calling other posters 'dim' just because they have a diferent view. You seem to be more and more influenced by CP Wigan every day.

No it doesn't. I thought this but if you look at IL's post:



Which means that none of them count on anything.

So for the non-federation trained for next season we have:

Cameron Phelps
Mark Riddell
Amos Roberts

Carmont, Richards and Feka don't count allowing us to bring in three more overseas players.

(I think)

Well if you read what I actually said, I said it was my [iopinion[/i that we would have to strengthen the team with players of that standard if we sign Phelps. That is we must look to the UK because we can't sign an overseas prop. I was not suggesting it was going to be Griffen as such but someone "like" Griffen. Unless you know of any UK props we can sign of a higher standard I am not sure what you are picking me up on this for.



Well that is the entire point of the debate. Is it worth keeping Phelps given the standard he is when the consequences for the rest of the team are what they are?

Not in my opinion. He isn't even one of the best in SL by some distance yet the recruitment will be compromised if we retain him.



I did not call other posters dim, the exact opposite. And as to "seem to be more and more influenced by CP Wigan every day" your post would seem far more reasonable without closing in such a ridiculous note.

Dave

Then why is Bailey also not none federation trained? The rules state a player can apply for federation status when their current deal expires. That means Bailey can apply for fed status at the end of this season and so therefore until he does is classed as none fed trained. Does that not apply to Richards and Feka who were also under contract at the time the compromise came in?

I am pretty sure Carmont arrived after this compromise anyway and so can't apply for fed status at all even though he is off-quota so he would be a fed trained player next season regardless so by your reckoning that would be 4 and so besides Phelps we cold brin in two players.

However as he is off contract I would still let him go if you are right because we should use such spots on top class players and he isn't top class.

Dave

"I don't accept people are too dim to understand the implications of re-signing him for the rest of the squad so I am baffled at the support for this player. "

Dave, spin it how you will, but that is strongly implying that people who "don't understand" your argument on this are "dim".

As for the rest, I basically agree that retaining Phelps may be a problem. But I can also see that sometimes you have to stop hatching convoluted plans and just stick with a player if he's delivering the goods.

With regard to the prop situation, neither you nor I know what the real options are - and they won't necessarily all involve players "like Griffen". I certainly wouldn't jettison a player who's giving his all purely because keeping him might mean that we can't then sign some top Aussie prop - who presumably (if the Phelps re-signing is true) isn't even on our radar at present.

I think the rules only apply to players who are non federation trained but who don't count on the quota.

Phil Bailey will count for nothing because of the relaxtions on the quota the RFL made that overseas players (who count on the overseas quota) who have signed before the new rules were made don't count on the quota when their contracts are renewed. But they will if they move clubs.



That is correct providing they were signed prior to the rule change.



Correct and a quota spot.



Apparently not. The only reason I can see is that neither have ever counted on the overseas quota only the non federation trained and so the rules only apply to players like them.



Not mine IL's reckoning

Richards doesn't count because of his Irish passport and Feka doesn't count because he was here from nefore June 2007 I think.

Had this conversation with cadoo on the signings thread and pretty sure that was right. May be wrong though

I have seen a huge improvement in Josh over the course of the season, one more season at reserve grade or maybe loaned out to a championship team then who knows.

As for Phelps, I have to admit I was not his biggest fan, I would never give him a bagging on here like some have but I was not sure about him. But he has done little wrong at fullback and fully deserves the new contract.

I can't see what difference between being a quota player or a Kolpak player makes to being fed or non fed trained. The whole idea is to get the number of overseas players down regardless of their overseas quota status.

Bailey, Feka and Richard were all committed to SL as the ruling put it at the time the ruling came out and to the best of my knowledge Bailey will be the first to come off contract since that time. It doesn't make sense.



Dave

At the end of the day Phelps is good, young, talented, bang in form and on a wage that isn't constrictive to the salary cap.

The argument over overseas spots is a none starter imo as if Phelps wouldn’t have been signed we would have had to replace him from the NRL anyway as there are no young British players equal to Phelps currently out there! Then you’ve got to ask yourself who is better in the NRL that will come over here and be;

A-Better than Phelps is now,
B-Come over for Phelps wage,
C-Provide the squad coverage Phelps does
D-Provide the length of service Phelps will at the club
E-Has the potential Phelps also has?

I truly think we’d be struggling to find anyone in the NRL that can tick all the above boxes. Yes we maybe able to get some 29/30year old semi decent/Glory days behind them type of player on a short term fix but what would be the point? Phelps has the potential to be our FB for the foreseeable future/

Why are we finding problems with this? I’m seriously worried about the state of some of the fans of this club--- we boo our own players when they are playing for us, we hound certain players out of the club, we criticise the chairman no matter what he does, we knock resigning like Phelps who is arguably the inform FB in SL at this moment in time. It’s constant doom and gloom on here it really is

Absolutely spot on.

Some people follow this club by viewing stats, facts and figures on a computer screen opposed to actually watching the game and personal performances.

It gets boring.

The only thing that matters imo is that Phelps is currently right in form and I can see no reason why that won’t continue or that he won’t get better.

I think we need to stop referring to Phelps as young. He is 24 not 19. He is midway into his career and approaching his peak for a back.

I am pleased with this re-signing as long as he doesn't leave us short in quota spots as DaveO mentions. If it doesn't then I think it is a good move. Cameron Phelps at the moment is the best fullback at the club. Amos Roberts and Pat Richards are not as good as him. I think in attack he is brilliant with his inter-linking with Thomas Leuluai setting up the last two winning tries for us. I haven't seen him miss a one on one tackle yet and he rarely makes many mistakes. He has improved every week and under a full year with Kris Radlinski will no doubt improve more. The fact the contract is only for a year keeps our options open. Also it means Pat can start a season knowing where he will be playing - on the wing! His best position IMO where he is more of an attacking threat.