I think anything that promotes the club is a great thing, the radio (and forthcoming TV) especially as it takes the club to a wider audience, and has the potential to attract supporters near and far.

As I have said previously I only wish the radio was available somehow on the actual ‘radio’ as well as www, but I also understand why that isn’t the case at this moment in time.

When I set up at the ground, the first thing I do is go to all the RL Twitter pages and tweet that we're live at the LSV ready to broadcast the Leigh v (Whoever) game. I then provide the link for them to listen to. We get the majority of our listeners this way and the chances are that most of them are neither Leigh nor our oppositions fans, just RL fans who have nothing else on on that day.

I have yet to come across one person who says they don't go to the game because they'd rather listen to the radio instead.

Mish I’m not sure who that’s aimed at? And I truly admire you loyalty, ignore/blame the ex-fans as much as you like, but when people like Harold, Matt, Jenky, even Frank all express concern at the direction the clubs going in, then its not the few ex-fans making noises they should be worried about.

With several threads and umpteen pages on each thread has there been anyone who has actually said anything along the lines of “You know what this Partnership is a cracking idea?”

None of the above were the people I was referring to. Of course it's vitally important that the BOD listen to the fans concerns but I don't blame them for not responding to what is becoming a witch hunt by certain members of this board.

I, like most other people am unsure whether this will turn out to be a good solution to the problems our club is facing, but I'm willing to wait and see.

I think the BOD and the CEO have tried their best to explain the reasons behind it but when people just take out the bits they don't like and use it as a stick the beat the club with, I guess they just cant win but to be honest, if the club hadn't made an announcement about it, I don't think anyone would even have noticed any difference.

I guess that just proves that trying to be open and honest doesn't always work.

As I put on the other thread….Are we not having any dual registered players in this partnership? Do you think we wouldn’t notice them?



"There is no presence of American infidels in the city of Baghdad,"

Have we had DR players in the last two years.....yes or no?

Last two years rules stated you could have three from any one club (wire in our case) and no more than 4 in total.

RFL bye laws would now appear to state to have DR players you must have an official partnership agreement signed by both parties. Thus only loan players are available to clubs who have no agreement. Loan rules state initial loan has to be forno less than one month. Result is loans are more difficult to get.

Memorandum of agreement signed by big four stated how they felt DR system should work not that it shouldn't exist.

For summary fro Paul Rowley see the reporter article on our Easter program.

Yes we have had DR players before, but they were the same ones, just like having 3 or 4 on loan, like we seem to have done for the last 100 yrs or so, this isn’t the same its 4 from any 20, a quarter of our team could be different players each week.

Anyone any idea what team Swinton will be putting out Friday? No it depends on who Smith sends them?

Anyone any idea what team Leigh will be putting out on Friday? No it depends on who Wane sends us.

With respect Glow the last line of your post is silly and I am sure deep down you know it. Tell you what when I get home after our game on Friday I will post our team on here just for you.

Agreed what about Monday’s



All I’m trying to say is we could end up with different players each week in our starting line up, and I don’t think that will do us or even them much good.

Emmitt and the like seemed to enjoy their time with us, we wont build a relationship if we are chopping and changing every week, if this isn’t going to be the case then why not just take 4 on loan?

Glow, it may have seemed like they were be the same 3/4 DR's. In 2011 we used 5, but last season we actually used [size=1509[/size D/R's in our first team. That surprised me, when I checked back! I bet we don't use that many this season, let alone the 21 others are forecasting.

How many games each did they each play?

The likes of Shaw and Russell who only played a couple of times, didn't last long for whatever reason and IIRC didn't perform too well either.

I think it's just the worry that although the club say they won't do this, this and this but when it comes to important games or game where injuries have taken their toll will they stick by what they've said?

Realistically there should be no need for any more than 4 Wigan players for Leigh to use this season. And by 4 I mean the same 4 over and over. For example Leigh's 23 man sqaud + U20s + Wigan's Spencer, Lloyd, Manfredi and Greenwood/Burke.*

That is how it should be run and no one would have an issue it I shouldn't think.

*Or anyone other 3 U23 Wigan players.

Think it was something like: Brierley 27; Spencer 18; Laithwaite 13; Nash 7; Shaw 3, Leuluai, Mendeika, Russell 2, and Burke 1 - give or take 1, or 2.

I think what you suggest is fine in principle. The more you use the more you could damage team spirit. However, to restrict it to 4 named players may prove unworkable, if they get injured, or become first team regulars - Burke, for example, seems to be getting a good bit of first team action, at the moment.

However, I reckon Paul would aim to see it restricted too.