Jump to content

George Williams Not Going Back To Wigan


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Fortunately the Wigan statement is a lot classier than this post.

I agree, its certainly not served Wigan well and I hate the way the club have just been giving players a free shot elsewhere with the safety net of a return if it doesn't work out.

How much sand does this kid need to sign on the dotted line?

Posted Images

11 minutes ago, Wigan Riversider said:

As with the Shaun Wane thread, I am not the greatest fan of going back.

I agree, I think it is best just to move on with things like this. I'm happy if it's confirmed Wire have him, and I can understand why Wigan would want him back as there aren't too many good halves around. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Wigan Riversider said:

As with the Shaun Wane thread, I am not the greatest fan of going back.

I agree, its certainly not served Wigan well and I hate the way the club have just been giving players a free shot elsewhere with the safety net of a return if it doesn't work out.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, M j M said:

Am I reading it wrong or is it a slightly dickish statement from Wigan?

Not the impression I got to be honest 

I agree with Damien that these return clauses aren't good. If a player goes to the NRL knowing he can return he might not fully commit. Increases the chance of more dodgy NRL stints like his (I know he played well but a dodgy return) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a dickish action from Williams. He's dropped Canberra in it, welched on Wigan, so watch out who ever he's joined. 

Edited by JohnM
  • Like 3

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Its a dickish action from Williams. He's dropped Canberra in it, welched on Wigan, so watch out who ever he's joined. 

Fortunately the Wigan statement is a lot classier than this post.

  • Like 5

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t see anything wrong with the statement or Williams’ return but people need to blame someone, don’t they? I don’t necessarily agree in regards to the return clause but that’s more down to Wigan’s recruitment than anything else. 

Anyway, Warrington, eh? Who’s going? Widdop or Inglis, surely. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Fortunately the Wigan statement is a lot classier than this post.

Can't face the truth, eh? 

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

 

Anyway, Warrington, eh? Who’s going? Widdop or Inglis, surely. 

Inglis, strong rumours he's gone or going, it will release £120k from the cap Williams will play the season out on that and then start a marquee contract. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The spirit of Andy Clarke lives on. Has managed to get Williams wriggled out of contracts with both Wigan and Canberra - and he didn't even have to get him to play the retirement card this time. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like george but I don’t think it looks great for him on face value . He had a contract at Canberra and got out of it , and reading that he had a written agreement with wigan and got out of it 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, DavidM said:

I like george but I don’t think it looks great for him on face value . He had a contract at Canberra and got out of it , and reading that he had a written agreement with wigan and got out of it 

He also may well have made it difficult for other young players to go to the NRL without strict release clauses being put into contracts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My club appear to be a soft touch and stuck in a long developing decline.

To me, Wigan has issued a curiously-timed statement, after being showed how to play by Hull KR, saying a former player has chosen another club for reasons unconnected to money. If that's a good move, I guess I don't understand communications and marketing.

On a more positive note, I suspect George Williams has made the right individual decision going to Wire and well done KR - I ended up enjoying their smart performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnM said:

Its a dickish action from Williams. He's dropped Canberra in it, welched on Wigan, so watch out who ever he's joined. 

This, is he not too bright? Badly advised? Or a combination of both? He doesn’t seem to grasp the concept of what a contract actually is

"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JohnM said:

Its a dickish action from Williams. He's dropped Canberra in it, welched on Wigan, so watch out who ever he's joined. 

It certainly is, it’s very disrespectful to their former player. He clearly doesn’t have a contract with Wigan, he was a Canberra player not a Wigan player, I don’t know why they seem to think he should only sign for them and not another Super League club.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

It certainly is, it’s very disrespectful to their former player. He clearly doesn’t have a contract with Wigan, he was a Canberra player not a Wigan player, I don’t know why they seem to think he should only sign for them and not another Super League club.

Which bit of "Wigan had a signed agreement in place for George Williams to return to Wigan once his stint in the NRL had finished" are you referring to?

  • Like 1

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posters need to read the Wigan statement in particular

Quote

“Wigan could have forced the issue legally but that’s not how we operate. If a player is emotionally absent, then there is no point in him being at Wigan.

That's IFL and Kris Radlinski accepting the reality of the situation and good on them. You do not want anyone at a club who does not want to be there.

Quote

When the pinch comes the common people will turn out to be more intelligent than the clever ones. I certainly hope so.

George Orwell
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Phil said:

This, is he not too bright? Badly advised? Or a combination of both? He doesn’t seem to grasp the concept of what a contract actually is

He and Wigan both say they had first dibs on him but they’ve agreed not to enforce the agreement, which is perfectly legitimate and suggests he does understand how it works. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tonka said:

He and Wigan both say they had first dibs on him but they’ve agreed not to enforce the agreement, which is perfectly legitimate and suggests he does understand how it works. 

Yep, if Wigan don’t want to enforce an agreement that’s up to them

Good luck to Williams

Edited by Spidey
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JohnM said:

Its a dickish action from Williams. He's dropped Canberra in it, welched on Wigan, so watch out who ever he's joined.

I see it completely differently. Wiliams wants to secure his future, and Wigan acknowledge that they're not in position to do that at a competitive salary. If they force him back on poor money he won't be settled, if they let him go they know due to the shortage of quality half-backs that the other club will paying be paying above Wiliams' true worth.  It works out for everybody - Wigan don't break the bank, Warrington get a half-back they need and are prepared to pay for, and Williams gets a secure future.

2 hours ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Inglis, strong rumours he's gone or going, it will release £120k from the cap Williams will play the season out on that and then start a marquee contract. 

Inglis can't be released for space on the cap unless he signs for another club.   And Widdop won't be going this season according to the club (quite right too as he's in a different class to Williams and it shows this year).   The only way to do it would be an immediate move for a big earner such as Austin, which isn't likely to happen   Or (god forbid) an imminent loss of Clark to the NRL, which would negate any signing we could make 😧

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are reading a lot into the Wigan statement that is not there, in my view. Anyway, whoever he ends up playing for better beware. Just trust that past behavior is not a guide to future actions. He might get homesick... again... and again.. and again

.. 

Edited by JohnM
  • Like 1

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnM said:

Anyway, whoever he ends up playing for better beware. Just trust that past behavior is not a guide to future actions.

Were Wigan fans saying the same when they signed Hardaker?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnM said:

Which bit of "Wigan had a signed agreement in place for George Williams to return to Wigan once his stint in the NRL had finished" are you referring to?

According to the news articles when Williams was leaving…

Quote

As part of the release agreement, Wigan will have first refusal on Williams' services should he return to Super League once his time in the NRL has come to an end.

If that is the case it is not quite the same thing as agreement to return. However, a ‘first refusal’ would mean that Williams would (legally and ethically) be wrong to enter into discussions with another party before Wigan exercised their right of refusal. Reading between the lines it sounds like Wigan may well have been unable to meet the the package that Williams 9having been in discussions with another club) is expecting (which may not all be financial. e.g. like starting pretty much immediately). Either way it seems that Williams was relieved not to have been sued for breaking the right of refusal by engaging with a third party before  Wigan. (Anyone remember Leeds Rhinos v Iestyn Harris?)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...