Re: Danny Who : Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:37 pm  

It's a shame after his time at the club he ducked the game today. If he had turned up and put in a performance, I think the crowd would have given him a good send off. Maybe this is naivity on my part but it seems a lame ending to his time with us.

Re: Danny Who : Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:39 pm  

newwildcat wrote:

It's a shame after his time at the club he ducked the game today. If he had turned up and put in a performance, I think the crowd would have given him a good send off. Maybe this is naivity on my part but it seems a lame ending to his time with us.

He wasn't allowed to attend, he wanted to play.

Re: Danny Who : Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:42 pm  

PONNER wrote:

He wasn't allowed to attend, he wanted to play.

and you know what ? broughy is contracted to wtw and should have played... dock his wages for the week...

Re: Danny Who : Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:44 pm  

PONNER wrote:

He wasn't allowed to attend, he wanted to play.

He would not have been allowed to play had he attended today, big difference.
He called in 'sick' earlier in the week.

Re: Danny Who : Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:46 pm  

I don't feel he should have played today if he's on his way out - send off or not, he's nailed his colours to the mast and we may as well have tried different players at 7 to prepare for the rest of the season. Especially considering that today's opposition, no offence Salford, weren't going to pose too strong a threat.

I don't think all of the fans would have wanted to give him a friendly send off. We're fickle, us supporters

Re: Danny Who : Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:46 pm  

PONNER wrote:

He wasn't allowed to attend, he wanted to play.

You openly admit the info you have (if even true) is just one side of the story, yet you make statements that that you believe are gospal, and then go on to tell others that its true!!

Can you not see a flaw in that??

Re: Danny Who : Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:49 pm  

any chance of a bet on where broughy is going? wonder if he has something on it?

Re: Danny Who : Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:51 pm  

1873 wrote:

He would not have been allowed to play had he attended today, big difference.
He called in 'sick' earlier in the week.

Thats what I was told as well. He made himself unavailable to play rather than not being allowed to play.

I wanted Danny to stay but I just want the whole saga over and done with so we can all move on and concentrate on the game.

We will continue without him and I believe we will not miss him in the long run.

Thanks Danny for the last 2 years but don't let the door hit your backside on the way out.

Re: Danny Who : Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:51 pm  

Doesn't matter if he wanted to play or not imo. As has been said already he clearly wants to leave and if we are going to get some cash and a player for him, we would be mad to risk him getting injured which could possibly leave us short anyway, but still paying his wages.

I also think it would have unsettled the rest of the team if he played, given the fact he probably is not the most loved player in the dressing room if all is to be believed. He didn't play well at Hull KR either, clearly his mind was already on his move to the Giants.

Re: Danny Who : Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:57 pm  

PONNER wrote:

He wasn't allowed to attend, he wanted to play.

Oh bet your loving this, anymore things to stir in.

Brough didn't want to play, he called in sick for one of the last training sessions, he was advised to stay away I believe.

I wish you wouldn't post negative things to this forum without the slightest idea of what happened, oh wait ive got it your a TROLL.