: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:53 pm  

RB wrote:

Didn't you want to sign Long for 2 years?

Please tell me you're joking. Please tell me why you are ignoring the second half of my constant posting outlining I would sign Long AND Myler.

Why you prove to be selective when quoting me is beyond me.

: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:54 pm  

odemwingie wrote:

I was thinking that. Only an idiot would choose Long over Orford.

READ THE POSTS FULLY. ONLY AN IDIOT READS HALF THE POST AND COMMENTS. HOPE THE CAPS HELPS GET IT THROUGH TO YOU.

: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:56 pm  

RB wrote:

Didn't you want to sign Long for 2 years?

which one of him are you talking to?

: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:58 pm  

Last Son of Wigan wrote:

READ THE POSTS FULLY. ONLY AN IDIOT READS HALF THE POST AND COMMENTS. HOPE THE CAPS HELPS GET IT THROUGH TO YOU.

Calm down driver, I was just doing it from memory, I am pretty sure you said you wanted to sign Long, thats all. Therefore if I thought you wanted to sign Long, I thought that was silly as currently Orford is a better player and I beleive would do better within 2 years.

I agree with you on Tommy though his defence is not as good as McIlorum however you gotta love the big hits every now and again, that one on Mary will never be lost in the memory.

: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:02 pm  

Last Son of Wigan wrote:

Please tell me you're joking. Please tell me why you are ignoring the second half of my constant posting outlining I would sign Long AND Myler.

Why you prove to be selective when quoting me is beyond me.

You really do show yourself up on here.

: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:04 pm  

odemwingie wrote:

Calm down driver, I was just doing it from memory, I am pretty sure you said you wanted to sign Long, thats all. Therefore if I thought you wanted to sign Long, I thought that was silly as currently Orford is a better player and I beleive would do better within 2 years.

I agree with you on Tommy though his defence is not as good as McIlorum however you gotta love the big hits every now and again, that one on Mary will never be lost in the memory.

Sorry for my CAPS! Since I mentioned Long people seem to think that was the be all and end all to my choices to help the club move forward, when I stated only if we signed Myler.

Many times it's been repeatedly brought up, incorrectly. Anyway he's Hull bound so who cares!

: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:04 pm  

RB wrote:

:lol:

You really do show yourself up on here.

Hang on, if he is saying he would sign Long and Myler, why wouldnt he just sign Orford and Myler.

: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:05 pm  

Last Son of Wigan wrote:

Sorry for my CAPS! Since I mentioned Long people seem to think that was the be all and end all to my choices to help the club move forward, when I stated only if we signed Myler.

Many times it's been repeatedly brought up, incorrectly. Anyway he's Hull bound so who cares!

Thats irrelevant. Orford would add more to our team than Long would of done. Signing Long over Myler just makes no sense, even if you wanted to sign Myler as well.

: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:08 pm  

odemwingie wrote:

Hang on, if he is saying he would sign Long and Myler, why wouldnt he just sign Orford and Myler.

Oh here we go.

Instead of ranting at me about 12 pages too late, flick back through the pages and you'll see the entire conversation.

I'm not going to go into it all over again, it's ridiculous.

: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:13 pm  

Last Son of Wigan wrote:

Oh here we go.

Instead of ranting at me about 12 pages too late, flick back through the pages and you'll see the entire conversation.

I'm not going to go into it all over again, it's ridiculous.

You think I am going to waste my time looking back through pages just so I can see what oh great last son of wigan said No thankyou.

However the simples of it are you wanted to sign Long on a 2 year deal. Yet you don't think Orford would be a good idea on a 2 year deal. This shows no logic however much you attempt to explain yourself on previous pages.

I agree with RB

Oh and the part I agree with is on the previous page if you fancy a look