Page 5 of 9
Re: Sam Burgess to Union
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 6:36 pm
by DaveO
keptinthedarkfans wrote:cpwigan wrote:The problem with calling for bans etc is we are then in effect behaving exactly like Union did when the boot was on the other foot.
Correct We can't have it both ways. We bled union of there top talent.
That is not what CPW meant. I read it as we can't be talking of bans on people like Farrell when we used to get upset because Union threatened to ban former players from visiting their old RU clubs.
As to us beading them of top talent back then, there is world of difference between us giving an amateur player a job he can earn a living from than trying to get a professional player to break his contract.
It does my head in when people try and equate the two.
Re: Sam Burgess to Union
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:27 pm
by cpwigan
I am simply saying Union was wrong how it reacted to Union converts and there is a danger that we are behaving exactly the same to League Converts.
Re: Sam Burgess to Union
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:46 am
by Owd Codger
DaveO wrote:keptinthedarkfans wrote:cpwigan wrote:The problem with calling for bans etc is we are then in effect behaving exactly like Union did when the boot was on the other foot.
Correct We can't have it both ways. We bled union of there top talent.
That is not what CPW meant. I read it as we can't be talking of bans on people like Farrell when we used to get upset because Union threatened to ban former players from visiting their old RU clubs.
As to us beading them of top talent back then, there is world of difference between us giving an amateur player a job he can earn a living from than trying to get a professional player to break his contract.
It does my head in when people try and equate the two.
It also does my head in when some supporters think that a club goes out of its way to get a player to break a contract in order just to make a profit when in fact the players themselves decide to go and better themselves financially or in the case of those near the end of their career wanting to play for their own town club.
Re: Sam Burgess to Union
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:51 am
by Owd Codger
cpwigan wrote:I am simply saying Union was wrong how it reacted to Union converts and there is a danger that we are behaving exactly the same to League Converts.
I am not saying we should do the same to the players, just those who encourage others!
Re: Sam Burgess to Union
Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:40 pm
by keptinthedarkfans
[
u]DaveO wrote:keptinthedarkfans wrote:cpwigan wrote:The problem with calling for bans etc is we are then in effect behaving exactly like Union did when the boot was on the other foot.
Correct We can't have it both ways. We bled union of there top talent.
That is not what CPW meant. I read it as we can't be talking of bans on people like Farrell when we used to get upset because Union threatened to ban former players from visiting their old RU clubs.
As to us beading them of top talent back then, there is world of difference between us giving an amateur player a job he can earn a living from than trying to get a professional player to break his contract.
It does my head in when people try and equate the two.
And it does my head in when people try to justify us creaming off RU talent for years with the amateur bunkem. Every player moves for one reason [b]MONEY [/b]amateur or professional contract or no contract.[/u]
Re: Sam Burgess to Union
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 1:19 pm
by DaveO
Whelley Warrior wrote:DaveO wrote:keptinthedarkfans wrote:
Correct We can't have it both ways. We bled union of there top talent.
That is not what CPW meant. I read it as we can't be talking of bans on people like Farrell when we used to get upset because Union threatened to ban former players from visiting their old RU clubs.
As to us beading them of top talent back then, there is world of difference between us giving an amateur player a job he can earn a living from than trying to get a professional player to break his contract.
It does my head in when people try and equate the two.
It also does my head in when some supporters think that a club goes out of its way to get a player to break a contract in order just to make a profit when in fact the players themselves decide to go and better themselves financially or in the case of those near the end of their career wanting to play for their own town club.
Your simplistic view of the world is duly noted.
Re: Sam Burgess to Union
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 1:27 pm
by DaveO
keptinthedarkfans wrote:[
u]DaveO wrote:keptinthedarkfans wrote:
Correct We can't have it both ways. We bled union of there top talent.
That is not what CPW meant. I read it as we can't be talking of bans on people like Farrell when we used to get upset because Union threatened to ban former players from visiting their old RU clubs.
As to us beading them of top talent back then, there is world of difference between us giving an amateur player a job he can earn a living from than trying to get a professional player to break his contract.
It does my head in when people try and equate the two.
And it does my head in when people try to justify us creaming off RU talent for years with the amateur bunkem. Every player moves for one reason [b]MONEY [/b]amateur or professional contract or no contract.[/u]
Re: Sam Burgess to Union
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:05 pm
by keptinthedarkfans
DaveO wrote:Whelley Warrior wrote:DaveO wrote:
That is not what CPW meant. I read it as we can't be talking of bans on people like Farrell when we used to get upset because Union threatened to ban former players from visiting their old RU clubs.
As to us beading them of top talent back then, there is
world of difference between us giving an amateur player a job he can earn a living from than trying to get a professional player to break his contract.
It does my head in when people try and equate the two.
It also does my head in when some supporters think that a club goes out of its way to get a player to break a contract in order just to make a profit when in fact the players themselves decide to go and better themselves financially or in the case of those near the end of their career wanting to play for their own town club.
Your simplistic view of the world is duly noted.
Whats up hit a nerve Someone else dares to disagree with your opinion.I will take your comment with the disrespect it deserves.
Re: Sam Burgess to Union
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:19 pm
by cpwigan
Re: Sam Burgess to Union
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:43 pm
by thegimble
Wether people like it or not almost all would go and join another club in union or league if more money was offered. If they do take Sam Burgess then Joel Tomkins will not be in the England World Cup squad and that could be interesting with the new exemption on the cap in 2015. If Burgess goes then Joel could get dropped out of the England Elite squad all together.