As oppose to the one you consistently tried to buy through the mid to late 80's and 90's paying big on Union players and Australians who generally turned out to be dross and ensure you won sod all?

I'm relation to the ban whilst I think it is fair I was hoping he would just pick up a fine. The lad is always good for 2 or 3 penalties a game against Wigan when he tries to go after Tomkins and is also a liability in defence against the wide running forwards.

Granted he has the nack of making a break but in these games I would hope both teams would lift their intensity and performance so whilst the 1 break may lead to something I think the negative contribution of 1 try as a direct result if him being on the field against and the 60 m of territory from needless penalties he tends to give away would favour Wigan.

I also think Ward is a cracking controlling half and if selected would be more of an asset if he can handle the pressure in this fixture.

The board accepted the Tesco offer because it was for more money. Why do you think the club and Central Park were up for sale in the first place if it wasn't to clear debts that the club couldnt afford to pay?

Easy enough? I think I've worked out the gist of what you're trying to say.

But you seem to have said yourself, in trying to refute that Wigan had to sell the ground to clear debts, that they were selling the ground to clear debts.


Not that I really care. Altogether too much d!ck measuring going on in this thread.

Does anyone really think the judiciary too Wane's comments into consideration when making their decision?

"Ill have a meat & tattie, extra gravy please!"?

Ooh, ooh, I don't!

Boring aren't I? Conspiracy theories are loads more fun. Is there a smily with a foil hat anywhere?

I know for a fact they don't.

....then let him flap his gums, makes Mcdermott's team talk even easier.

Nah... that's him at Old Trafford in 2004.

Or the CC Final in 2011 during the obligatory rendition of God Save The Queen!

No, which makes the comments attributed to him all the more bizarre. Inexperienced, under pressure young coach who'll probably be looking forward to his P45 Saturday morning now if Leeds do the untinkable.

As you say Wane's already provided the bulk of McDermott's pre-match team-talk so hopefully someone within the Headingley camp will publically thank him after the match should Leeds go through.

I don't see what the issue is. It's some welcome -stirring of the highest order - that's all - adding spice to the occasion. If it adds a few thousand chomping-at-the-bit fans to the attendance on Friday night then it's a job well done.

These play-offs have being dying on their @rse with sub-five figure attendances (apart from the Wire/Saints game which just scraped a 10K attendance - allegedly) and as for that reported 11.5K attendance at the Catalan/Leeds game? Who are they trying to kid?

I'll give you that


It was Abide With Me actually......Meant even more than normal that year as my best mate had recently passed away.

Not really any need for what wane said but it's quite funny that an idiotic minority actually think he is responsible for the ban because he said something in the media. When in essence all it has done has got you lot chomping at the bit and spiced things up a bit. Thankfully most of you can see sense and agree it was worth a ban. Although Was McDermott not trying to influence the decision aswell when he said live on national television something along the lines of "i hope common sense prevails and he isn't banned. He thought the player was taller" thats why he smacked him round his head with a swinging arm then... All Wane wants is consistency, and if there was going to be any, it warranted a ban...

You'll be a threat with or without "Maggsy".

Can't recall the exact figure but League Express quoted somewhere between 8-9K. Which I thought might have been a bit on the high side.

Looks like your Cabinet will remain lonely for yet another Season 7.15283203125:10