Wigan Watcher posted:
I was questioned the reasons why Wigan signed Millward after the allegations against him (more than one and on more than one occasion) by younger ones, it was very hard to justify if not impossible. I was not interested in what he has achieved or what he may achieve.
Rugby has nothing to do with it!
Why didn't you justify it by saying that they were 'allegations' and not 'actual fact?'
What did Millward do publically whilst at Wigan that brought the clubs name into disrepute? I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Can you?
jinkin jimmy posted:
AFAIK it was all set up. I can only surmise - if it doesn't happen - it is because Tony Benson has dug his heel in. His post match speech after the Rochdale game was quite spirited and defiant.
It was only going to happen until the end of the season. IM will be heading to the maroon state next season, by all accounts.
Wigan Watcher posted:
I was questioned the reasons why Wigan signed Millward after the allegations against him (more than one and on more than one occasion) by younger ones, it was very hard to justify if not impossible. I was not interested in what he has achieved or what he may achieve.
Rugby has nothing to do with it!
Why didn't you justify it by saying that they were 'allegations' and not 'actual fact?'
What did Millward do publically whilst at Wigan that brought the clubs name into disrepute? I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Can you?
Allegations, thats what we have to put on here.
As to what brought shame on our club was signing a guy who lets say had allegations against him, there's that word again allegations!!!!
Wigan Watcher posted:
I was questioned the reasons why Wigan signed Millward after the allegations against him (more than one and on more than one occasion) by younger ones, it was very hard to justify if not impossible. I was not interested in what he has achieved or what he may achieve.
Rugby has nothing to do with it!
Why didn't you justify it by saying that they were 'allegations' and not 'actual fact?'
What did Millward do publically whilst at Wigan that brought the clubs name into disrepute? I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Can you?
Allegations, thats what we have to put on here.
As to what brought shame on our club was signing a guy who lets say had allegations against him, there's that word again allegations!!!!
The whole point about "allegations" is that they're not necessarily true. Anyone can allege anything about anybody (although it's usually sensible to word them carefully in view of the libel & slander laws).
"Innocent until proven guilty" is the rule.
robjoenz posted:
Why didn't you justify it by saying that they were 'allegations' and not 'actual fact?'
What did Millward do publically whilst at Wigan that brought the clubs name into disrepute? I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Can you?
Allegations, thats what we have to put on here.
As to what brought shame on our club was signing a guy who lets say had allegations against him, there's that word again allegations!!!!
The whole point about "allegations" is that they're not necessarily true. Anyone can allege anything about anybody (although it's usually sensible to word them carefully in view of the libel & slander laws).
"Innocent until proven guilty" is the rule.
Fair enough, but what I'm trying to say is that you should't use unsubstantiated allegations as part of an employment selection procedure.
Would you be happy if you lost your job because someone alleged something about you, that was never proved to be true?
I always thought the "allegations" used to dismiss Millward from Saints were of a minor nature but were used to justify sacking him because they could be by taking the conditions of employment very literally.
They were the excuse used to get rid of him because that is what the two running the club at Saints wanted.
There was certainly a lot of debate at the time about if he had done anything to warrant the sack.
He certainly did not provoke controversy here in his comments about RL or off the field so I think from that point of view no one can have any complaints about Millwards public behaviour while Wigan coach.
We can moan about selections or his coaching etc but I can't see any reason to slag the man off for his behaviour.
GeoffN posted:
"Innocent until proven guilty" is the rule.
Except for the TV Licencing people. Everyone is guilty of tv licence evasion unless they have a record saying you have bought a licence or you write to them to tell them you don't have a television. I've had 8 letters off them in the last year threatening me with legal action if I am using a tv without a licence - I am not, I don't have a television, but they can forget it if they think I'm wasting a 30p stamp to tell them I am not breaking the law. But they will keep on pestering me about this until I do tell them one way or the other. Why is it not upto them to find the lawvbreakers instead of accusing us innocent folk...?
"You rescue me, you are my faith, my hope, my liberty.
And when there's darkness all around, you shine bright for me, you are a guiding light to me....
You are a Tower of Strength to me" - Wayne Hussey, The Mission.
Shepherd's Bush Empire - 27/Feb/08 - 1/Mar/08
[hr]
GeoffN posted:
"Innocent until proven guilty" is the rule.
Except for the TV Licencing people. Everyone is guilty of tv licence evasion unless they have a record saying you have bought a licence or you write to them to tell them you don't have a television. I've had 8 letters off them in the last year threatening me with legal action if I am using a tv without a licence - I am not, I don't have a television, but they can forget it if they think I'm wasting a 30p stamp to tell them I am not breaking the law. But they will keep on pestering me about this until I do tell them one way or the other. Why is it not upto them to find the lawvbreakers instead of accusing us innocent folk...?
Are you alleging that Millward is watching TV without a licence, or are we drifting ever so slightly off-topic here.....
