Quote: Cruncher "Give over, Dave. Talk about me 'methinks you protest too much'.
You and your usual partner-in-crime on this matter have regularly been as skeptical about IL as it's possible to be, and yet the club is in a better place than it's been since the early days of Mo (and probably at half the cost).
'"
This is more utter b@llocks from you regarding my position on IL and what he does. I have been on record about how good the Orrell facilities are, how well IL has done with repairing the image of the club and numerous other points. As I said I agreed with EW only the other day on the things they pointed out as positive aspects of his tenure here. I have certainly not been "predicting disater" as you put it in the post I replied to. (Your backtracking and current accusation of merely being a skeptic are duly noted).
Quote: Cruncher "I don't like the salary cap either, as I've said many times, but having a tantrum because the Wigan chairman thinks it can be made to work is a bit rich even for you and BK.'"
I know you don't like the salary cap but in your rush to have a go at me and BK you are now having to defend IL's current approach which is really quite funny.
The only tantrum I can see is from you flinging false accusations around. I am merely voicing an opinion as to why I disagree with his comments in the article linked to at the start of this thread. Perhaps if you kept on-topic you wouldn't feel the need to preface your posts with the personal comments?
If you read the article its clear his way of getting the salary cap to work is to put in place a proper wage structure. I have no doubt that is a good thing in itself and that it works in that sense but I have no idea why that is a reason not to raise the cap, why that will help retain players or attract them in the first place. There is nothing in that article from IL that tells me why whether Wigan have a proper wage structure or not that the salary cap "works" as you put it in that regard.