"Blinkered" is the problem, but if the blinkers are superglued then what can you do?

The money issues we have directly led to the disruption of losing one Sam Burgess from the squad - can you imagine how we might have been with Sam in the team? Despite that we have bought wisely (Menzies, Hall, orford, Kearney, L'Estrange), brought on shrewdly (Whitehead, Donaldson), we are in the Cup, we are 4th in SL, and McNamara was voted SL Coach of the Month for April plus now selected as the national coach as well. Any person whose blinkers were at least capable of adjustment, if not removal, would revise their plainly potty "dud" view, but I won't hold my breath.

Eddie's a lot less 'credit where it's due' on this thread than he has been on others. Gone a bit SackMac fundamentalist.

We'll be spending more than Wakefield (not in february though), Castleford, Salford, Harlequins & Catalans (at a push).

Why not in February.

Start of the season. Since then Tronc, Newton & Brough have gone. All 3 would have been near the Wakefield top earners.

So you are simply dressing up opinion and presenting them as fact then?

And given subsequent conversations and points perhaps your "facts" carry not very much weight?

Ah! The nameless "expert". TBH Adey, if you cannot actually name this "expert" then this point really means nothing. After all, anyone could claim that they had spoken to someone in the know and make something up in order to suit their own argument, without said "expert" being implicated in something that they may or may not have said.

I think you could safely add Crusaders and Hull KR into that list too. However, even if your list was 100% then we would be the 6th lowest spenders rather than this fabled 4th.

However, we can speculate away, just so long as we are not presenting opinion as facts.

I have no intention of disclosing more particulars of a private conversation on an open forum. And certainly no intention of disclosing to YOU since I do not trust you to respect confidence.

But I HAVE told several people, who asked and who I trust, in PM. And some others will likely know anyway, since they will have seen me in conversation. It's anyway no big deal or mystery.

And if you want to call me a liar, that is entirely your own affair. I doubt you'll find many who know me who would form that view.

At no point did I call you a liar so stop making things up or else you may make yourself look like one.

The simple fact is that when 99.9% of people on here make claims about the club in any way and claim to have heard from a reliable person then they are asked to name a source before anyone actually gives them any credibility. I do not see why anyone should be any different.

Quite simply, it is easy to say anything you like and claim that it is insider knowledge if you do not reveal the source of the information. Especially if it suits the argument you are trying to make.

However, in regards to my views on the club, its people and the coach, I will make it quite clear that the only people I have ever had issues with are Hood and McNamara, the Cameron and Clegg of RL. Still, they will soon be getting surgically removed from each other so that is a blessing.

Eddie, your implication was perfectly clear. You would not have said what you did otherwise.

I've just had a perfectly reasonable PM request from one of Macca and Hood's biggest critics on here, asking who and what. And I told him. Its no big deal. Because he just simply asked, rather than posting a pompous, patronising and prejudging lecture.

You could have done the same - on the forum or in private. Maybe a few weeks ago you would have; I don't know. But you seem to have suffered some form of relapse of late, sadly.

That shows you up. Everyone will have their own opinion, naturally, but there are some from whom one would give such a statement more credence, and some less. You are effectively as good as calling Adey a liar, but his track record makes you look stupid. Yes, "anyone" could claim anything, but not all posters are equal in the credibility stakes. If you are saying that a respected and plainly honourable poster is to be lumped in with and believed or disbelieved just the same as any random shiithead troll, just because they don't name names to respect a confidence, then you are more stupid than I thought. Personally, I reckon you don't doubt Adey did have the conversation, but can't bring yourself to admit it.

FFS Eddie, it was me who Adey spoke to.

To be fair to Adey, I had to ask him to not include good looking & witty in his description to protect my identity.

A supposed "respected and honourable poster" on this board (Wigan Bull) earlier posted a load of baloney on this very thread, opinion that he is presenting as fact, again to try and prove a point. It happens.......

As for the conversation? I have no doubt that it DID take place, but, as I will say again, correctly, anyone can say that they have had a chat and say no more. It is not difficult. However, the next time someone claims to have heard something from a club insider, I am sure that you and Adey will be generous enough to take what they say at face value rather than ridiculing the very thought?

(not that Adey ridicules anyone to be fair.)

(well not on a public forum anyway

)

Eh? Given that the vast majority of such claims are just pure attention-seeking bollox, why would we do that, then?

Because if you don't then it will show you up to be, once again, a complete hypocrite.

Eddie, I am pleased you have now effectively retracted your accusation (for that was what it was, and how it was clearly meant to be read, no matter how you choose to describe it now) that I was lying. I was not. I did have that conversation. And deep down you always knew that, since deep down you know that my posts of that nature are always sincere. Did you not? rather, you attacked me because of the maybe inconvenient truth of message, did you not?

I have no problem with attacking the message - that is your right just as much as it is anyone else's, and it is needed for healthy debate. But it is disappointing when someone feels the need to attack the poster personally because they disagree with the message.

Trying to shift the "debate" onto other posters' supposed conversations with "club insiders", and drawing parallels with what I posted, is disingenuous and (again) bordering on dishonest. Read what I posted:



It should have been totally clear that my conversation was with someone outside of the club, not a "club insider". So your statement:



is not in the least bit comparable or relevant to this particular point - convenient distraction thought it might be.

And no, I do not set out to "ridicule" other posters. I don't need to resort to that dishonest means of trying to win an argument from a position of weakness or insecurity. That sort of approach is rife from the political clique who dominant the Sin Bin, is very prevalent on certain other boards (such as Wakey) and unfortunately is also present to an extent on here. Indeed, it is a tactic that you yourself employ disappointingly-often.

FWIW, Most of the supposed "inside information" posted on here - and on most internet forums everywhere - is subsequently shown to be pure wänkerage. However, there are some posters who have a good rep for posting only what they believe and have good grounds for believing is accurate. The smart observers are the ones who can see and tell the difference. Whether or not they agree with the message.

Eddie, I thought you were on the mend. Its disappointing to see this relapse.

ME, fair enough, maybe I should have left it a little vaguer and used “alleged” or “suspected” in there, However I have no doubt we are unable to offer the same cash incentives to players from 1st team down to juniors as we could previously.

So come on, as I asked before, do you think the same spending power exists at the Bulls compared to say 96-03?

Indeed. Instead, we are back to this sort of shiitake mushrooms from him:



Because if what? I'll explain; Eddie is childishly and absurdly claiming that:
"[ithe next time someone claims to have heard something from a club insider[/i" then I must, every time, "[itake what they say at face value[/i". If ever once I do not, then I am "[ia complete hypocrite[/i".

So, I can't give credence to what Adey ever says (Adey BTW FWIW having ironically specifically said his info was NOT from a club insider - but when did such trivial details ever make a difference to someone with ME's convoluted 'logic'), even on the sensible grounds that to me he is a reliable chap. If I believe Adey - then I must believe everyone else too. And if I don't then by process of ME 'logic', I will be "[ia complete hypocrite[/i".

So it is not possible to choose whom to believe on Planet Eddie. The claims of all posters, even the nuttiest troll, are to be viewed alike. You must believe all, or none.

Eddie, your proposition is utter and unmitigated bollox. Even you must see that. How can you even come up with such arrant nonsense?

Of course not. However, I still think that being the fourth lowest spenders is a pile of turd too.

So what did this person say?

And I also have heard that we are the fourth lowest spender (or in the bottom four? can't remember exactly) but (and this is the bit that might hurt some) have been able to attract some of our bigger names due to our reputation and to the plans for the future. Pretty sure that Macnamara played a big part in that.

was it a comment from hood in a piece in league express a couple of months back. Seems vaguely familiar though I seem to remember it said lower spenders rather than specifically saying 4th lowest.