He would be better than Elliot Kear who was horrendous yesterday. He was either not trying at all or he's the slowest winger in the world.

I cant argue with that, even farrell caught him we arnt blessed with quick wingers, Kear does give his all though always willing to take the first hit up, WHICH HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO, he is one of few who seem to try now.

I can totally understand that most of the players are fed up now i get that, through 2 admins not knowing if you will be paid on time, worrying if you will have a job in the morning, if it was me id be fed up also but thats not the point once you pull on the RAB that should instill some pride in you, thats whats missing id rather we go down kicking and screaming that without a whimper.

If the roles where reversed and this was Wigan in our situation do you think they would turn up and play like we are? No, if they did they would be lynched, they would give their all every game and im afraid even though they may not care thats what they need to do, we need someone who knows what it means to play in front the the fans and in big games we need a hero or at least a proper leader.

Apart from the Farrell chasedown I thought kear was the only regular 1st teamer who looked interested yesterday. As already stated he seems to take the ball up often early in the tackle count due to lazyness of our forwards. The four young lads off the bench showed the passion we are missing right now. Wigan did play like that back to back a few years ago against Leeds & Saints. The coach was sacked & replaced by a certain Brian Noble who kept them up.

Main difference was that Wigan had a rich owner (Whelan) at that time, and a regular crowd base of over 12k. That allowed them to buy some players (Fielden and Dobson - so much so they broke the cap and were penalized the following year), we have neither! If Noble came back and got us to 12th, I'd say it would be his greatest achievement!

That's true, although he didn't have huge wealth or a good squad when he took crusaders to the play offs though. Right now with dwindling gates, a poor squad lacking confidence, rumours of dressing room unrest, and clear deficiencies in both attack & defence we have to throw the dice. It would be a huge challenge for anyone at this point to keep us up, but I'd rather go out with a bang than a whimper.

Fair point re Crusaders, overlooked that. Agree with bang for season end. Need to see rapid and drastic improvement starting with defense which starts with attitude

I think Marc Green has made a solid start as new owner by taking time to review what's what and bring in more people to help run the club, especially Ferres who is steeped in RL experience, unlike when OK took over where there were few people with 'industry' experience. In my view the next 2-3 days are vital to show action to address an elephant sized problem. Let's hope he gets it right!

Disagree totally with the post knocking Kear.

He ran himself into the ground and was one of the few who gave a good lead to the kids, imo. There were some very poor performances at that game but Elliot is one who could definitely look himself in the face when he shaved the morning after.

Missed Donno in the middle channels. He now seems to be the defensive mainstay of the team. How long is he out for? Rest of the forwards need to pick up his workrate.

On another matter, the creditors meeting should now be underway in Leeds

According to me, you are, again, talking bollox. I vainly tried to explain to you that there is no legal entity that exists in law separately from the company that owns the Bulls. This was when you tried to claim "the Club" had appealed, i.e. some legal entity separate from the owners, and I explained to you that this was a nonsense, illustrating my point with a question or two, such as, what if the owners did not want to appeal, but this club did? And if this club legally exists separately, then who speaks for it?

Of course, when people talk about "the Bulls" and "the club", it is plainly obvious to everyone except you what, in context, they are talking about. Which, 99% of the time, will just be in general conversation where legal distinctions and definitions aren't important. But it was important in that particular context.

Why is it such a problem for you? Perhaps you should try to not let being corrected get under your skin as much as it clearly does.

Say you have a company like M&S - the executive directors of the company decide to pay themselves a £10m bonus - the owners of M&S eg the shareholoders don't like this but cannot organise themselves to vote it down at the agm. Owners and "company" the same?

FA, there is a legal entity called superleague, that has rules etc that enable a new set of owners of one of the participants in that legal arrangement to make an appeal for a penalty applied to previous owners. its all in the agreement between the two legal entities, which has an existence outside of the owners of the legal entity. that agreement enables the owners to appeal if they wish to, or not if that is how they are minded. Two parties and a legal agreement between them, pretty fundamental legal stuff dont you think? or do we just sayh we have a franchise and thats it, we are in superleague?