: Tue May 12, 2009 10:45 pm  

Latchford Wolvesfan wrote:

Come on now Cockers you know that isn't what i mean, we had a 6 in 7 chance of getting a Super League team and our team would needed our support in this round more than ever, what im saying is that when we drew Fev, Moran should have realised that we would beat them anyway so do the coach's thing for the Quarters, don't get me wrong im not complaining about what he done, like i say it was a very nice gesture and ill be there with or without cheap transport.

LWF - It is only 110 miles to Hull afterall (compared to 70 miles to Fev). Hardly a Ray Mears type expedition into the Amazonian rain forest in a hollowed out tree.

: Tue May 12, 2009 10:46 pm  

Ian [77] wrote:

Do you still believe that Moran is no good for the club and that the sooner he goes the better?

Did he really say that? Oh how we can be wise after the event.

But before you take the mickey are you still in the pro-PC camp?

: Tue May 12, 2009 10:57 pm  

Wires71 wrote:

Did her really say that? Oh how we can be wise after the event. Are you still in the pro-PC camp?

Wise after which event? It was only about a month or two ago when LWF said that the sooner Moran leaves the club the better for the club (or words to that effect).

Do you agree with this point of view that your mate LWF expressed?

: Tue May 12, 2009 11:02 pm  

Herb Narvo wrote:

Wise after which event? It was only about a month or two ago when LWF said that the sooner Moran leaves the club the better for the club (or words to that effect).

Do you agree with this point of view that your mate LWF expressed?

I have no friendship nor antipathy towards LWF - it's neutral, never met him so can't call him a mate nor do I deride him. I was just commenting on how some people like to catch fellow posters out for mis-guided, poorly informed, hasty, postings whilst having done the very same themselves.

As for Moran, and if pushed for my opinion, we'll see won't we. Saviour or just an over zealous fan with a few bob. Who knows.

PS From what I heard (3 sources now, LWF being one) about the potential exposure to the Reardon claim, all is not well from a conditioning/medical point of view.

: Tue May 12, 2009 11:10 pm  

Wires71 wrote:

I have no friendship nor antipathy towards LWF it's neutral, never met him so can't call him a mate. I was just commenting on how some people like to catch fellow posters out for mis-guided, poorly informed, hasty, postings whilst having done the very same themselves.

As for Moran, and if pushed for my opinion, we'll see won't we. From what I heard ( 3 sources now) about the potential exposure to the Reardon claim, all is not well from a conditioning/medical point of view.

Sorry if I mis-understood your relationship with LWF, I was under the impression you were mates away from the forum what with exchanging pm's and arranging to meet up at the Quiz Night (which you should have gone as it was good fun as usual).

Don't see where you are coming from with Moran in relation to Reardon. I don't think he treated him. If there is a claim surely its a good thing that somebody with real resources is able to provide financial backing to the club if they need it.

I don't think LWF was referring to the Reardon incident when he said the club would be better off without Moran. Just like I don't think you answered my question about whether you agree with his opinion on that point?

: Tue May 12, 2009 11:20 pm  

Herb Narvo wrote:

Sorry if I mis-understood your relationship with LWF, I was under the impression you were mates away from the forum what with exchanging pm's and arranging to meet up at the Quiz Night (which you should have gone as it was good fun as usual).

Don't see where you are coming from with Moran in relation to Reardon. I don't think he treated him. If there is a claim surely its a good thing that somebody with real resources is able to provide financial backing to the club if they need it.

I don't think LWF was referring to the Reardon incident when he said the club would be better off without Moran. Just like I don't think you answered my question about whether you agree with his opinion on that point?

No, not mates on the forum or away from it, but I bear him no ill will. He has sent me, and others, PM's which by and large have proven to be reasonably well informed often in the face of locked threads and derision from other forum members.

As for the quiz night, I believe he sent one post asking if I was there, to which I replied that I wouldn't.

Moran presides, as majority shareholder, over the entire WWRLFC organisation. I believe that said organisation is not run at anywhere near optimum levels across a variety of KPI sufficient enough for us to compete with the very best in SL. In particular, the level of injuries we suffer put down to "act of God" and potential embarrassing exposure to litigation from an ex-player on neglect/duty of care grounds give me specific cause for concern in that specific area.

I think that clears up my position.

: Wed May 13, 2009 5:53 am  

Wires71 wrote:

Moran presides, as majority shareholder, over the entire WWRLFC organisation. I believe that said organisation is not run at anywhere near optimum levels across a variety of KPI sufficient enough for us to compete with the very best in SL. In particular, the level of injuries we suffer put down to "act of God" and potential embarrassing exposure to litigation from an ex-player on neglect/duty of care grounds give me specific cause for concern in that specific area.

I think that clears up my position.

I thought Gatcliffe was responsible for the way the club is run, at least he was when you was having your go at Gatcliffe the other week. Seems your the kind who isn't happy unless he's moaning. I think this generally indicates somebody with their own self-worth issues.

As for Moran being responsible for injuries? You've lost the plot there.

Also note you've changed your tune on Reardon, the other day you were rather dismissal of the possibility for a claim against the club.

Well at least you're willing to give Moran time before making a judgement. I guess your waiting to see how the decision to bring Peter Deakin to the club plays out.

Some people just don't know how lucky we are to be Warrington supporters. The club gives free transport (ok £1 charitable donation) to an away game in Yorkshire and suddenly its a conspiracy to avoid having to pay for a longer journey on the off chance that happened to be the outcome of a random draw; give me strength.

I think that clears up my position.

: Wed May 13, 2009 9:10 am  

Wires71 wrote:

No, not mates on the forum or away from it, but I bear him no ill will. He has sent me, and others, PM's which by and large have proven to be reasonably well informed often in the face of locked threads and derision from other forum members.

As for the quiz night, I believe he sent one post asking if I was there, to which I replied that I wouldn't.

Moran presides, as majority shareholder, over the entire WWRLFC organisation. I believe that said organisation is not run at anywhere near optimum levels across a variety of KPI sufficient enough for us to compete with the very best in SL. In particular, the level of injuries we suffer put down to "act of God" and potential embarrassing exposure to litigation from an ex-player on neglect/duty of care grounds give me specific cause for concern in that specific area.

I think that clears up my position.

I can't believe you are attempting a rational argument in favour of a balloon like Latchford.

: Wed May 13, 2009 9:38 am  

Wires71 wrote:

Did he really say that? Oh how we can be wise after the event.

But before you take the mickey are you still in the pro-PC camp?

What are you talking about?

He only slagged Moran off last month. What has happened in the last month that allows someone to change their view on Simon 'Pumped thousands of pounds into Warrington Wolves' Moran? How is he being wise after the event? What is the event? I should also say that he claimed that Moran told him things personally which is where his Inside Knowledge came from. THAT is why I'm taking the mickey.

There is absolutely no correleation between that and Cullen's situation and your question is irrelevant. I'll answer it though, no, I'm not in the pro-PC camp anymore. As an aside, I think you need to let Cull go 71 - I don't know why you feel the need to bring him up all the time or make reference to the fact that you wanted him sacked years before he eventually went.

: Wed May 13, 2009 10:07 am  

Ian [77] wrote:

What are you talking about?

He only slagged Moran off last month. What has happened in the last month that allows someone to change their view on Simon 'Pumped thousands of pounds into Warrington Wolves' Moran? How is he being wise after the event? What is the event? I should also say that he claimed that Moran told him things personally which is where his Inside Knowledge came from. THAT is why I'm taking the mickey.

There is absolutely no correleation between that and Cullen's situation and your question is irrelevant. I'll answer it though, no, I'm not in the pro-PC camp anymore. As an aside, I think you need to let Cull go 71 - I don't know why you feel the need to bring him up all the time or make reference to the fact that you wanted him sacked years before he eventually went.

You're right of course. It's not my strongest argument ever and I communicated it poorly. I'm not coming on here again after going to the pub