I nominate Mystic Eddie as the first appointment to the Directorate of Rugby, an idelogically pure committee of followers of the People's Team.

Nobody is disputing the facts, including that Wigan got on a fantastic roll that we couldn't (quite) stop, and eneded up losing a match we should never have lost.

What is just weird though is to compare it with the abomination at the JJB. In the play-off game we played some absolutely fantastic stuff and looked like, and for a time were, playing Wigan off the park. So how can that possibly be validly compared with a performance like last weekend's? It deserves a mention in the book, of course, but not in the chapter of performances devoid of merit. The only connection is that Wigan won both, and there the similarity ends.

Ah. So you're not denying that you said they [isaid[/i everything is financially rosy, you are saying that you didn't [imean[/i to say that they said that, but meant that they [iconveyed the message[/i that everything is financially rosy.

You might not have meant it, but why deny you said it?

I'm sure there is some important difference between them actually [isaying[/i that everything is financially rosy and them [iconveying the message[/i that everything is financially rosy, but it just escapes me for the moment. Would you mind refreshing my memory and explain the point of the distinction?

IMO the first half was Harris's best performance for the Bulls.

May have been. Harris gave it to them good, but then they handed our Harrises to us in the second half

Of course. Silly of anyone to get that impression.