Re: Mike Danson : Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:17 am  

Ruddy Duck wrote:

Get rid of him as he only signed for Wigan for easy money and Wigan only signed him for the publicity of signing a Burgess brother who is in fact no longer in the same class as his twin brother Tom and more so retired brother Sam.

A shame as when they were younger, he was the better of the twins.

Ever heard of something called a contract on your planet?

Re: Mike Danson : Fri Aug 28, 2020 10:13 am  

[Gareth] wrote:

Ever heard of something called a contract on your planet?

I'd be surprised if he's heard of a lot of things

Re: Mike Danson : Fri Aug 28, 2020 11:26 am  

A lot of hate directed towards GB. The same level that Pat Richards had in his first season, though admittedly he wasn’t on the same level of salary.

Fact is he’s coming back from a bad injury. He needs time and leading up to the season postponement he was getting better and going well. People with their pitchforks out so early are, to be frank, ridiculous and short sighted.

Re: Mike Danson : Sat Aug 29, 2020 7:05 am  

It's not me who is out of touch on Burgess, just those who think that every player that Wigan sign is a good signing.
'
And to compare Pat Richards who was in his prime when he came to Wigan with a player who is near the end of his career, not been offered another contract by South Sydney or any other Aussie club who evidently no longer rate him, come with a bad injury and then given a three year contract is not good thinking on the part of the club and I am not the supporter saying it.

And supporters are entitled to express opinions on players signed by the club without the usual minute minority making snide comments about being on another planet or being a troll etc.

Re: Mike Danson : Sat Aug 29, 2020 7:32 am  

Ruddy Duck wrote:

It's not me who is out of touch on Burgess, just those who think that every player that Wigan sign is a good signing.
'
And to compare Pat Richards who was in his prime when he came to Wigan with a player who is near the end of his career, not been offered another contract by South Sydney or any other Aussie club who evidently no longer rate him, come with a bad injury and then given a three year contract is not good thinking on the part of the club and I am not the supporter saying it.

And supporters are entitled to express opinions on players signed by the club without the usual minute minority making snide comments about being on another planet or being a troll etc.

Until you keep dodging the question then you're a troll.

This has nothing to do with yours, or other fans thoughts on if he's a good signing. You said you'd get rid, but can't answer the question of how you'd do that when he's got a three year deal.

Ignoring contracts is out of touch with the reality of the situation.

Re: Mike Danson : Sat Aug 29, 2020 8:51 am  

Ruddy Duck wrote:

And supporters are entitled to express opinions on players signed by the club without the usual minute minority making snide comments about being on another planet or being a troll etc.

Unfortunately, that's not the way it works. Just because it's your opinion that doesn't entitle you to 'protection' from people having different opinions.

Re: Mike Danson : Sat Aug 29, 2020 9:18 am  

Ruddy Duck wrote:

It's not me who is out of touch on Burgess, just those who think that every player that Wigan sign is a good signing.
'
And to compare Pat Richards who was in his prime when he came to Wigan with a player who is near the end of his career, not been offered another contract by South Sydney or any other Aussie club who evidently no longer rate him, come with a bad injury and then given a three year contract is not good thinking on the part of the club and I am not the supporter saying it.

And supporters are entitled to express opinions on players signed by the club without the usual minute minority making snide comments about being on another planet or being a troll etc.

Pat Richards was not in his prime when he came to Wigan at all. What was he, 24 maybe?

Re: Mike Danson : Sat Aug 29, 2020 9:19 am  

sergeant pepper wrote:

Until you keep dodging the question then you're a troll.

This has nothing to do with yours, or other fans thoughts on if he's a good signing. You said you'd get rid, but can't answer the question of how you'd do that when he's got a three year deal.

Ignoring contracts is out of touch with the reality of the situation.

I wouldnt waste your breath. We should get rid of GB now and replace him with Robocop

[Pemps]

Re: Mike Danson : Sat Aug 29, 2020 11:49 am  

[Gareth] wrote:

Pat Richards was not in his prime when he came to Wigan at all. What was he, 24 maybe?

And out of form too. Spent a bit of time in the reserves.

[DaveO]

Re: Mike Danson : Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:02 am  

Wigan Peer wrote:

Well................................................... It seems that almost since day one of his tenure, you have taken any and every opportunity to have a little snide dig at IL.. To even compare his stewardship with that of DW is an insult. While of course it's good to have extra investment, you have always found ways to look at IL in a negative light... You should have a chat with the Hardaker obsessive, compare notes.

Don’t be so ridiculous. Address the point I made rather than making up straw man arguments you can agree with. I did not compare his tenure to DW’s. I said I don’t like one man owning the club regardless of if is DW or IL so a new stakeholder is a good thing. It’s a positive development.

Yet here you are coming out with nonsense saying it’s an insult to compare their stewardship which I didn’t do so you can have a pop which you obviously could not wait to do. It’s transparently obvious. Grow up.