As I said ... I don't know whether his new contract puts him among the top 25 earners or not. I've already admitted that. But I still don't think it's a massive issue, because I trust the men in control to get these things more or less right. I'm not sure what kind of nightmarish impact you think this is going to have at Wigan, but clearly those in charge of Pryce on a day-to-day basis, and those in charge of balancing the club's finances, don't share that view. Now, you may disregard that as another "the coach is always right" argument killer, but all I'm saying is that, on recent evidence, I'm quite happy not to wet my knickers over something so unimportant.

But while I admire your ability to quote verbatim from the rulebook, Dave, I'm less impressed by your inability to respond to my main gripe, which was your immediate and completely unfounded accusation that this was an IFL decision not a Maguire/Wane decision. Now, I've admitted that I may be wrong about Pryce being a cheap option. Are you prepared to admit that you may have been a bit hasty in lumping the whole of the blame for this on IFL? Or, failing that, are you at least prepared to admit that you have no evidence for such a conclusion?

Dave, you say 3 seasons at the club but lets be realistic, Pryce has had two seasons at the club. His first he was injured for the entire time, which whilst it may be used against him, was hardly his fault.
In his two years Pryce has played mainly in the reserves failing to break through, then managed to get a run in the first team before being dropped again. He also had an excellent try scoring record.
In his two years playing first team, Ainscough broke through into the side, had an excellent try scoring record and then was dropped. In his second season he failed to make the squad based on pre season performance, managed 1 appearance before being dropped and was poor on loan at both Cas and Widnes.

You've stated that you would have preferred Ainscough to stay, what makes you think he deserves it more than Pryce?

As for the argument about the salary cap. Perhaps Phelps is earning more than Pryce, Lenegan could only afford to keep one. Keeping Phelps takes away from the money left over to pay Hock's wages when he returns, so he keeps Pryce. It's hypothetical, but no one actually knows for sure.
The club will have already budgeted for the full spend on the cap, so perhaps keeping Pryce and taking the club up to the limit and ensuring we have some more cover in the backs was a sensible one?

No the crux of my argument is anyone justifying the signing of Pryce because he may earn little is missing the point of how the salary cap rules work.

So it is everything to do with the rules.

Dave

I wouldn't hold your breathe!

PS

Why should there be "Blame" for this resigning?
When needed, the guy came in last year and did IMO a Pretty decent job in his 10/12 appearances. Unless another youngster isn't getting a chance because :-

A/ Pryce is being paid too much money so there's none left (I sincerely doubt but as you say no-one other than a certain few at the club can assess that, but for me I'm guessing he's a pretty good cheap option. And I would guess better vlue for money back up squad player than a lot of other clubs have).
B/ Pryce is getting picked unfairly ahead of a Youngster without Warranting it (Which would be a slight on Madge/Wanes selection policy which I can't see there being an argument to say they have been unfair with any player). Meaning said Youngster moves on elsewherewhen the Club didn't want them to.

Then I don't see what the problem is? At least the scapegoat merchants can focus all of their efforts in 1 direction rather then argue over who's to blame for any defeat or mistake by the club.

PS

18/24 months ago I argued with a Sintelliner in Brisbane that in 2 years Wigan would be right up there at the top of the RL pile because they had at last learned how to show patience and allow youngsters to come through at their own place because the Club were building a "Squad" of players that meant Youngsters would be given a chance when it was the right tome, not because we had to play them!

I also wrote on a thread 12 months ago that our squad had far more "Strength in depth" than at any time for the past dozen years or so. Given the current salary cap situation give me a a Good squad of 25 players with maybe only 1or2 standout players than 6or7 standout players and only 17 front line/good enough players.

The Likes of Prescott/Pryce/Goulding/ even Hansen/O'Carroll/McCollorum/Mossop/ & Currently Farrell fall into this category for me, players who may not neccessarily make a starting 13/17 if everyone fit but over the course of a season will more than play their part if we are to have a Good season.
Just like last year!

Hi all,
This is my 1st post on here so be nice

, Some of you may remember me from my previous profile as The Rooster. It's good to be back


I believe that the re-signing of Deacs for another year is a big bonus for us next season as it allows us so many options around the halfs.
I have read the thread over & do agree with both sides of the argument regarding Price, I didnt mind him re-signing for another year as its a position in the squad covered. I remember a couple of seasons ago we was praying to be in a position like this where every single position within the squad had ample cover. Now we're here we find ourselves arguing over a player taking a squad place, Not starting 13, a squad position, and how refreshing it is to see imo. It just shows how good a state our club is in at present & I for one hope that if called upon, Price will do a job for us.

Welcome back young sir

I thank you

So are you suggesting it would be better to go in with 24 front line players?

I may be being thick, but surely if the coaches deem hit good enough to be in the top 25 players, and the money men can accommodate him without damaging the squad, breaking the wage structure or rules, the whole should he be a top 25 player is irrelevant.

If you do not think he is good enough fair enough, but I fail to see really what relevance this entire top 25 issue has, assuming we have not broken any rules to sign him for a further year, which under the live system I assume we have not as we would not be able to register him if we had.

Funny you said the opposite when we talked about it

Whichever way you look at it Pryces one year extension has been approved by Maguire, Wane and Lenagan, so like it or lump it he's here.

I've said it before and will say it again I think it was the correct thing to do. He rarely concedes tries and scores his fair share. Can he do better? Yes, and I do believe this will be his last chance. I don't see him keeping any of the younger players out of the team if they earn that place, that's how it worked last season, they all got their chance.

Just on Dave O's point, it'll be interesting to see where Gareth Hock fits in the "salary scale" on his return in June

If/when Hock returns he will have to fit under the cap. Should the club pay him a very small amount in 2011 then the RFL can invoke their "salary cap worth" clause, I think.
That is to get around clubs listing players as getting buttons when everyone knows they are quality players who's worth is far more than the club is declaring for SC purposes.
MM has declared that Hock may well return so I'd imagine Wigan RL have already discussed this in depth with the RFL and will go with their ruling on it.
As is known, if any player is not fitting under the cap then he will not be registered to play by the RFL.

The shirt numbers would seem to imply that he's outside the top 25. If that's the case (and given that no other club has shown any interest in him, it seems likely), I think keeping him on is fair enough.

While I take DaveO's point about KP taking a part of the £50k "second tier" SC that would otherwise go to Davies and the 6 new lads, I think they can afford to be patient for another year or two.

There's no way Pryce will be outside the top 25.

IMO Charnley will go out on loan to a SL club, not been massively impressed with Marsh from what i've seen but again, i'd loan him out.

After those two, if we released Pryce who would be ready to step into the outside backs if needed?

Personally, I'd have Roberts, Charnley & Marsh ahead of KP, even if it meant recalling them from loan. In fact, going off their U20's form (where they've consistently looked more impressive than Pryce), I'd have King & Russell ahead of him, too.

But would it really be worth recalling them from loans for the sake of (probably) 1 game?

I imagine Roberts will (or at least should) get in the side anyway, even though Sams got the 1 shirt I think they've just gone with the team that finished the season, I think he'll move back to 6.

Jusst like to say good luck to Mr Pryce, the powers that be must se something in him otherwise he would have been cast a drift to a lesser club ( no names mentioned [size=50wire[/size.

All the best for 2011 karl.

I'm looking forward to many more arguments with fellow Wigan fans over the skills of Karl

I'd say so, yes. That's the whole point of the loan/dual reg system. We recalled Charnley from HKR for a single game (admittedly it was aginst HKR, so he couldn't have played for them anyway), and also Ainscough from Cas for one game.



True - though he'll probably be covering for Pat until he's recovered.

I'm pretty sure if we were to send Charnley out on loan he wouldn't be able to be recalled for the first month. Also, Ainscough and Charnley never returned to the clubs they were at. If we recall them, chances are they aren't going back out on loan to those same clubs and we'd have to find a new one. They won't take too kindly to being messed around and having to sort out a new loan deal because we keep recalling players for just a single match. It would disrupt the player and clubs would think twice before taking our players on loan.

I'm not a fan of Karl Pryce at all and i make no bones about it. I didn't rate him when watching him at bradford and dont rate him now. It's about overall contribution to the team for me and Karl doesn't offer much more than finishing off trys from 10 yards out. (a bit of a general statement but you get my drift) But putting my dislike to one side, i actually can't work out how he's managed to get an extension. I understood the last extension as it gave Pryce a chance to show to madge what he could do over a full season. He hasn't done anything to warrant a spot. Others have gone on their way quicker than Pryce has. And how narked would i be if i was Carmont who has to justify his extension every year whereas KP just has to fall over the line a few times and then take it easy in the reserves for the rest of the season and get another deal??? I'd rather let him go and use the "real" youngsters as extra cover

The big difference is that Carmont was 31 years of age when he wanted a two year deal.Wigan only wanted to give him a one year contract. It was the correct thing to do to monitor the number of games he played in 2010, which then "triggered" the extra year. it worked well for both Geporge and the club.
It's now up to Pryce to prove that he is worth another contract for 2012. if he performs he will get one, if he doesn't he won't.
I don't think that either Ryan King or Matty Russel are ready for Superleage yet, so keeping Pryce was always a viable option.

From the club's point of view, it was a perfect deal.

Everything we've seen from the new management team has shown us that performance is the indicator to how your future at Wigan will pan out. Pryce will most probably get his chances in 2011 to prove that he merits a place at Wigan going forward, which is exactly how it should be.

Good luck to him

At the end of the day, it's a bit of a pointless argument. He's here, and there's not much point in people sitting around fuming about it.

Pryce is a condundrum to me. I wish he was as good as people seem to think he could be, but neither do I think he's as bad as is sometimes portrayed.

At the end of the day, he's a small part of a large and very efficient squad. In that respect, I don't think he weakens us noticably, if at all.

IMO, there is too much good stuff going on at Wigan at present for us to get angry or frustrated by something like this.

I've been watching this thread with great amusement for sometime now.

A point that's being missed on the top 25 earners and the salary cap:

Assuming we have >24 players on the roster, =#FF0040somebody will always be the 25th (or 23rd, 24th etc) highest earner at the club =#FF0040regardless of how little they actually earn.

Putting somebody in the 25th highest earners at the club does not directly equate to them getting much of a wage at all. Just do some basic math.

How much is he on? we'll never know exactly.

All we can deduce is that there's a KP's salary shaped space on our salary cap liability (1st or 2nd tier), lets call that amount =#FF0040X and that the =#FF0040club deem that spending amount =#FF0040X on KP was more beneficial to the team than using amount =#FF0040X for =#FF0040any other purpose. When considering that =#FF0040X maybe small (and still put him in the top 25), and only the club know what =#FF0040X is and what the alternatives are, further discussion on =#FF0040X becomes moot.

Eitherway I expect this to run and run until it's quoted to death.

SEB,
You've been quiet for a while.

Agree entirely, but you won't convince a lot on here.

Dave O will come up with some conspiracy theory, written by Mickey Highams mum of course.