And we all know who the is the main person for stirring things up and pushing them as facts if it has anything to do with IL.

Blimey are you sure you're on the right site?

Your post seems remarkably well though out, balanced, plausible and also sensible.

Not the sort of stuff that usually appears on here at all!!!

Sorry, maybe I've been away from Wigan too long.

Sam's a dispicable traitor, IL doesn't give a **** about Wigan and just wants to make money. Is that better

.

Going back to reality, what you have to do as an owner and want you want to do for your Carreer as a professional player are often very different to us fans point of view, essentially for us it's a hobby, one a lot of us care about passionately but still a hobby.

No, what normally follows, especially if following anything remotely deemed anti IL, is a barrage of posts asking you to stick to the facts. Strange it hasn't happened in this case, don't you think?

Possibly because he himself in his post on more than 1 occasion says he is offering a counter argument to those that are "Continually" speculating on every subject and coming to conclusions about people at the club based on nothing more than speculation?

Possibly because this isn't said persons 10,000th post of speculation to paint people in a bad light/good light.

This is the crux of the people who are prepared to wait's argument.
Were happy if there was no criticism or praise of people based on pure speculation without access to facts however have no other option due to the amount of negative speculation to respond which can often be deemed to be "over Positive" which in fact is just people trying to just put some perspective on things without access to the full facts.

www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union ... 2phfc.html Did anyone see this interesting article?

www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union ... 2phfc.html Did anyone see this interesting article?

First time I've seen it, but it made me chuckle.

Andy Farrell and Eddie Jones were first choice ahead of Michael Maguire.

Yeah, course.

That presumably comes from the same Rugby Union 'history book' that had Leeds offering £1 million for Will Carling back in 1990.

So, speculative posts that counter DaveO are allowed but not the other way round? Thanks for the explanation.

That's not what I said is it?
I said if there wasn't so many speculative posts criticising the club an it's employees without knowing the full facts then there wouldn't be any need for any posts to defend against them.

But you read it the way you want.

I really probably shouldn't ask but I am curious as to when anyone who might post an opinion on a forum, positive or negative, ever posts in full knowledge of the facts?

There's far more doe eyed adoration than speculative criticism posted on here though that it to be expected. What shouldn't be accepted is the way that some posters, not you, round on those with an opposing view, especially a view that paints the club in a negative light. Hell, we've even got the mob complaining because some of us want to welcome our opposition!

What I want to see are both sides of the coin in any debate. Vive la difference I say.