Hull is two regular season away games.
London for what could and should be a home game is not the same at all. It's further, costs more and takes longer. About twice as much in each case. I call that quite massive.

And, to repeat myself, what if we lose, when we could have played at home? That's potentially a gamble with our whole season that I don't think the club should take.

It's about the same price and time by train. There was plenty said beforehand about this so it's not like they pulled the wool over our eyes when selling season tickets.

Of course. You will have read such posts as well I am sure. Why the selective memory?



Such as? Give me an example.



I am not and no I do not just "not like him". Have you have made this up so you can agree with yourself?

The one which glaring stands out is your objection to the IL policy of allowing players to try their hand at RU/NRL. To date 3/3 have returned to Wigan and we've ended up with a surplus in the bank as well.

We go by car. Twice as far/much.

London was not mentioned beforehand.

It surely is "may", not "will", because a suitable venue would still have to be found.

Anyway, I'm sure this is much less about having a match in London than it is about trying to rustle up more corporate sponsors.

That's true of all your home games isn't it?

It's the way you tell 'em...

Great news for me. Can we play it at Wembley?

I knew you would say that. But I don't believe even you think it has worked.

Tompkins x 2 and Mossop are back because it didn't work out elsewhere. Not because of a policy IL has instigated.

I find IL claiming it is because he let them leave patronising (and I have said the same before now).

Next example?

If Wigan do not finish in the top four they only get 3 home games and if there is one in London that just leaves 2 home and 5 away.