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?

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.

Very rarely if ever. What a lot of posters do is write as if what they assume or think to be happening is fact.

Blimey!!!!! i'm "doe eyed!" as well as a "Happy clapper"... Looks like i need to add a signature.

I'm really going to regret this but here goes.

Opinions on players performances, players we should be buying, team structures etc. are all subjective so fill your boots.

Now believe it or believe it not I'm actually not that bothered but I find it strange at times that in certain circumstances when analysing certain issues surrounding certain employees of the club some people like to make assumptions about a situation (that may end up being correct or not) but then push these assumptions as reasons and examples as to why said people are performing well or not.

I can't criticise IFL for example for selling ST when I don't know yet whether he has or hasn't.
I'm not going to get into a slanging match with people who tell me that getting rid of Gaz hock was all SWs fault and IFL is a disgrace for backing his coach all based on someone who says he's "in the know" without any evidence for this.
And let's be honest, what's gone on over the last 3/4 months seems to be the fall out from the Hock situation with certain people who predicted that the club would "Fall apart" etc. with player unrest. Now seeing as this hasn't manifested itself on the field as predicted we seem to now have a barrage of criticism (as I say the majority based on speculation) of the clubs hierarchy and if you don't mind, I'll wait and see until more facts are known before I decide to join in the criticism (which I may do dependant on the explanations given) or not.
I would say that's an ok stance to take and nothing controversial?
As Crunchers said numerous times, if people want to criticise based on assumptions, info they know but can't tell anyone else for whatever reason or whatever that's up to them.
Just don't expect people to sit back and be brainwashed by it, they'll question it and push back and offer counter arguments which I assume is ok?

I don't mind seeing both sides of any argument and I agree with you on the applauding opposition onto the pitch etc.
I just don't see a fair stance from those that want to criticise and when their opinions are questioned or they are asked to provide facts etc. they they go on the offensive and accuse people of bullying or that people are attacking them etc.
Edit
The last bit about complaining about being attacked was not aimed at DaveO who stands toe to toe in any discussion without complaint (despite not agreeing with him most of the time ).