No, that's what you prefer to believe. But I can't really fault you there. You, being the one who knew Ian Lenagan was a bad un the first time you saw him, obviously have a much deeper insight into these basic human truths.

Just out of interest, do you actually know what a visa application involves? And how long it sometimes takes?

Do you even know what a visa is?

Have you ever tried to rush a government department on anything?

Do you even know what a government department is?



Now I'll give you a real truth - you are absolutely cakking yourself that Wigan may appoint Michael McGuire, because it will make your long and boring stand against the chairman seem that little bit more ridiculous.

No i didnt. If i did please quote me on that exact wording or zip up!



I meant just because IL said one thing to you lot at a meeting does not mean he has to stick to it. Wether or not he does decide on who to sign is anybody guess but because IL once told some fans at a meeting that he does not sign the players does not mean we should all sit here and believe it as 100% truth and nor should we think it is an 100% lie. The fact he tried to sign Sean Long and he didnt have a clue who the coach was going to be says that his statement about him not signing players has a question mark hanging over it!

Have i spelled it out easy enough for you this time?

Surely people aren't that suprised Leneghan talked to Long? The new coach now has a much smaller pool of available players to talk too than Leneghan has throughout the season, so he's bound to be keeping an eye out. I'd have been annoyed if I'd found out Leneghan had not talked to any possible signing until Wednesday and in doing so missed out on the ideal player.

The new coach will still be able to make his mark on the personel by his choice of coaching staff, whether he renews Carmont and Bailey's contracts and whether he makes a signing or two. I'd give Carmont another year look for a cheapish half back who can create and kick well. To be honest Long might not have been a bad option, although two years would have been a bit much. If we can get such a player then sign him and let Bailey go, otherwise give Bailey another year too.

Perfectly…………



Reads to me like your saying he says one thing to a group of people to keep them happy and then and goes and does the other thing.

No need to carry this any further.

Maybe he does,maybe he doesnt?



I should think so,since you have failed to show me where i said IL was a liar which was your original statement.

I love your loose application of the word 'fact'.

When IL says something it's either a 'lie' or 'not quite a lie but not quite the truth' (whatever the hell that drivel is supposed to mean). But when Sean Long says something, it's a 'fact'.

Given Long's impressive history of honest dealing, perhaps I should bow to your common sense. After all, you're the guy who knows at first glance what people are really like.

Well he either has or he hasn't which one do you think it is?

Has IL in your opinion said something to the shareholders and then done the complete opposite?

Simple question really but I'm sure you won't answer it

And any defence of IL will result in you spitting your dummy into next month!

Not at all. If you speak to AJ he will tell you i have said IL has done a very good job of the business side of things.

I can only assume you refer to me spitting my dummy out as being when i present people with a fact eg. the reason Sean Long did not sign for us.

Could it be that IL chose to NOT tell Long who the coach was going to be, as with Longs record it could have been on the back page of the newspapers the next day?

Couldn't have put it better myself (and that's saying something ).

You're right on all counts, as much about BN as IL. It's truly a pity that the rantings of micro-intellects can cause us to polarise our views so much.

I've got a good feeling this week, especially after reading morning's papers, and try as I may, I just can't get outraged about what was or wasn't said to Sean Long. The only thing that could really spoil the party now is if the new coach isn't who we hope it's going to be.

I think what we had was a novel situation. When was the last time a coach at any club who wasn't going to get a new deal saw his contract out?

I don't mean like Anderson at Saints or Lowe or Monie here who were leaving because they wanted to and it was all very positive with fans sad to see them go. I mean when was the last time a coach who the chairman did not want next year saw his contract out?

What usually happens is the coach gets sacked before the end of his contract (or if he is lucky made director of football like Powell at Leeds was) so Noble staying on to the bitter end was a new one on me and I think it makes an important difference to how things should be handled.

I also don't think not having the new coach signed up at the time the club could have announced Noble was leaving at the end of the season would have looked unprofessional. I think saying nothing as happened did look unprofessional. It makes it look as if they are peddling the job around and if they found no takers they will offer the existing coach the job anyway.

They didn't need to announce the new coach at the time they could have said Noble was off IMO so the failing to get McQuire and then giving it to Wane scenario need not have materialized. Mind you we may yet find ourselves in that situation if the BBC reports are to be believed it isn't all done and dusted with McQuire.



I get the impression the "neutrals" don't think this has been handled any better than Mo sacking another coach. It's a bit ironic letting a coach see his contract out turns out to be as controversial as sacking one!

Dave