The term 'marquee' is not what this is really about.

You need to remember that a few people - the usual suspects - have been preparing the tar and feathers for IL since the word got out a few months ago that Sam wanted to leave early. The acquisition of Bowen, while not an ideal like-for-like replacement, is an astute piece of work by Wigan in that it provides a very decent replacement who can also be used as a mentor for our very talented young fullbacks in the junior ranks - and this has really taken the wind out of the lynch-mob's sails, which has obviously infuriated them. The best they can do at present is impotently sputter that: "He isn't a marquee signing - damn you all! He just isn't!"

God knows how frustrated they'll be if Wigan win the Grand Final, which would be IL's fourth major trophy in four years (those of us who are grateful for this are written off as 'happy clappers'). It would be laughable if we weren't stuck with these people on a seemingly permanent basis. It's the ultimate stuck record.

Actually it is.


It's about IL and his insatiable appetite to spin. He has been made to look like a baffoon over the Sam Tomkins affair. He has, intentionally or otherwise, misled the Wigan fans into thinking that ST would be here for at least 3 out of his much lauded 5 year contract.

Yet when this has been proven to be no more than spin and hope, with absolutely no basis in fact, instead of an apology, we get more spin.

Apparently Bowen is an "Excellent replacement for Sam Tomkins" and a "Marquee" signing.

I would say the wording is very relevant.

LENEGAN runs a BUSINESS he's hardly going to come out to fans and say look we are struggling for quality (but in reality he has just signed 1 of the top 5 fullback in the world) but please renew season tickets and merchandise anyway.

Its like McDonalds doing an advert saying are burgers are crap.

He doesn't run a business, he runs a sporting club. There is a difference (or at least should be for a team of the standing, tradition and reputation of Wigan RL).

Tbh his opposition to CC rises has in part led to the dearth of talent available for signing, so to that extent he is the architect of his own misfortune.

No, the first bit about Sam not doing his full three years is/was important, but we already knew about that - we've known about it for weeks - and you'd have looked a bit shallow kicking up about it all over again. So you jumped on the word 'marquee' - only to find, no doubt much to your surprise even though it isn't for the first time - that not everyone agrees with you even on that little matter.

a sporting club is a business and it needs to make a profit or be supported, and all the players are assets if you like it or not. And wigans biggest Asset wants to leave and we would of been stupid to stop him.

I "found" that not everyone agrees with me? On an internet forum? No way! Gosh you are full of spectacular revelations this morning aren't you?



I highlighted the words that I did as it's further evidence of the continued spin from IL. Frankly I now struggle to believe anything he says.

[iYou have answered your own point there.[/i

The rest of your post is irrelevant to the debate.

i know i made my point that Wigan Warriors are a business so what? and its not really tho is it your moaning that we have allowed sam tomkins leave who is an asset and if you keep him he would become unhappy and cause unrest in the club.

Why is the rest of his post irrelevant? Because he's adopted a realistic attitude rather than a head-in-the-sand approach.

And you seriously think attendance will fall because Sam's gone to the NRL? I remember people saying the same thing when Hanley left, and as much as I missed watching him playing for us (as I will Sam), it didn't stop me supporting the club as it won't do for the vast majority.

You always did.

Didn't it take you something like two years to acknowledge that Michael Maguire had been a good appointment? (Or was it a 'lucky' one?

)

Mind you, at least that proves your determined-to-be-unimpressed attitude to Bowen isn't just a farcical one-off eccentricity.

Bowen is a sensational player.
Far better than Hodgson and he was man of steel in his first season. We are lucky to have him, and if anyone genuinely objects to the "marquee" description they should watch his last 4 performances for North Queensland. He'll go better for us than Minicello.
Give it a couple of weeks, and Sam may be leaving us with 2 LLS, 2 Cups and 2 Super League winners' medals. By my reckoning that exceeds our haul for the entire period of SL before IL took over. The only currency we deal in are trophies, and whatever IL is doing, he can keep on doing it as far as I am concerned.
I can't understand why people care what IL and Wane and other sporting people say (though it might be because we all have too much time on our hands). Words can be taken out of context, throw away remarks can be over analysed, errors of judgement can be mulled over ad nauseum. So what if we look at IL and conclude that we don't like him? That's part of life.
The one thing that matters are the current results and future prospects of the team. On current results, with 3 games to play no one has had a better season, on future prospects, if we keep Bowen fit, I think the doom sayers will be proven wrong again next year. Which brings me full circle - take Bowen's last 4 performances, watch them closely and your worries will be over.

The article says it's reckoned they could afford to keep him. Parr was obviously going out of his way to accommodate the player as well. Who to believe? You who thinks its all a pack of lies or people down-under who actually talk to the clubs and Parr himself?

I saw that post in the Aussie newspaper weeks ago and that is what I based my opinion that he would only be released if his club thought he wasn't up to it physically.

You seem to just want to dismiss that article as propaganda simply because it suits your point of view to do so.

Simple question, do you think signing a him is a risk or not?

99.9% of all signings are risks in one way or another

Why are we arguing about Bowen's fitness? He's just played a full season in the NRL and by all accounts played pretty well. Presumably Wigan's medical staff have assessed his fitness prior to him signing. Why don't you base your opinion on that? Why do you presume to know better?

Of course his signing is a risk, but given his pedigree, probably worth taking. Would you rather have Richie Mathers perhaps?

Regardless of Bowen's ability, signing a player of his age is always going to be a risk. But given that we have a few young lads who can step into the FB role if need be, it's a calculated risk.

And a simple question for you, who do you think we should have signed instead? I only ask because if he's a bad choice (which you seem to imply), we can only judge that against the other options that might have been available.

And to all those who are hung up on IL's "Spin" and seem concerned that this in some way means that he should fall on his sword if those words dont happen to be 100% correct consider this.

Show me 1 signing over the last 30 years (And we could go back to forever) when the club have announced that we've signed someone "Average" and haven't tried to put spin on it in some way.

I'm a big fan of MO but some people seem to think he could do no wrong and seem to want to criticise IL for things that others have done in the past yet seem immune to the same criticism.
I'm sure somoen could pull out what Mo said about the Vaeliki signing or the Michael Withers, Shane Millard (Who I quite liked actually, just wish he were 5 years younger), Tim Jonkers, Jordan James Etc Etc Etc Etc.
Lets see if there were any words of "Spin" over those signings?
Lets see wha words of Spin Jack Robinson put on the selling of Andy Greg and his aquisition of his replacement? The signings of Paul Koloi, Stuart Lester, Shem Tatupu & Doc Murray.

I dont remember them announcing we'd signed "Craaaap!"

There are people who have made their minds up about IL & SW for various reasons and as alluded to with regards the "Other Forum" earlier the self serving sanctimonious rubbish spouted by some (Luckily not as much lately on here) is astonishing.

Ive now seen posts criticising other posters for coming up with an "hypothetical" argument even though they put the words "If" as a counter argument yet feel no shame in doing 10X the amount of speculation and pushing it as Fact.

Scratching around to find the tiniest faults with how the club run seems to me to be nothing more that an "I could do better" type argument.
Luckily IMO we'll never know wether that's true or not but I'd wager some of these people wouldn't have an ounce of the business acumen that an IL or others have.
Anyway, "Happy Clapper" alert for the usual suspects so feel free to deconstruct my post minutely to try & prove a point.

I'll just concentrate on another Semi Final on Friday, another possible Grand Final, possibly a 4th major trophy in the last 4 years not including 2 LLS.
Damn, Best stop now, too much positivity without mentioning the increased crowds, better marketting, better youth set up and retention of youth!
Damn, at it again!

I don't know better and never suggested I did. His club decided he wasn't up to another season despite how he has just gone and they released him. That is what the article said. I didn't say it. You can chose to believe it or not.



No and I wouldn't ask such a stupid question either.

Well granted they are not going to say they are poor but you are bright enough to realise that the reason IL is calling Bowen a marquee signing is all because he's just let Sam go early.

It's wonderful how many mystics are on this message board, Bowen hasn't even laced up a boot and he's an over the hill demic. Imagine judging him and the board this time next year, how novel would that be?

at the end of the day sensible fans will make their own mind up if he is a good signing once they have seen him play in the Cherry and White. We know Sam would be going sooner or later and at least we now have salary cap available to keep young players like Burgess, Tierney, Hampshire, Williams etc etc by paying them a little more.

I'm stuck on a train so have spent an hour scrolling through various threads on this forum and I've come to the conclusion that Rugby League was better before we had internet forums like this wasn't it?

This wild, frantic criticism of the term 'marquee signing' is straw-grabbing on a truly epic scale.

Wigan have clearly done the best they could to find an adequate replacement for a star who wanted out, and all you can do is quibble about terminology and add your usual bit of uninformed guesswork about how great a risk it might be.

Paying youngsters more money so they stay at the club longer and realise their potential in Cherry & White!


It''ll never work!



PS

And before someone says it I Know some of these will then move on at some point to other clubs, some because we want to, some because they want to.
I'm sure the club will try to put a positive "Spin" on all of this and isn't that surprising!
An organisation in "trying to put a positive vibe out about themselves" Shocker!

Ah some happy fans out there again.

I for one am happy its all out in the open now. Let Sam enjoy his last couple of games and move on hopefully with another winners medal. Matty B looks the business and will fit in well with our structures whilst passing a wealth of knowledge and experience onto the youngsters coming through.

Just think, we could be in the position That Stains are in. Im sure that would be a whole lot more depressing.