[urlhttp://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12211/8567072/Super-League-Michael-McIlorum-rejected-Leeds-Rhinos-to-join-Wigan-Warriors[/url



Wouldn't want him anyway. I bet he was one of the reasons Queens were booted!

Oh yeah, we believe you.

Good hooker when he's got his head screwed on right.

He's a Thug Pal. More interested in brawling than Playing Rugby. Abit like Hock, and I wouldn't want him either. Just my Opinion of course.

You should.

Now he'd be worthwhile (if he could get decent minutes stuck behind Burrow) but we wouldn't have needed him had he signed with Leeds in 2005, we had Diskin ('05-'10) and Buderus ('09-'11) and went well enough.

He was a complete pr1ck when at Queens. Strikes me as a bit of a knob now as well to be fair.

Is Bailey in the squad for tonight...?

If you put your best Jim Bowen voice on it sounds better....'OO unlucky son...you could have won these...five Grand Finals and three World Club Challenges.

So it's really about him liking more money and less success than less money and more success.

If you think Bailey is in the same Sh&t Bucket as McIlorum and Hock, you're dreaming Mush.

How do you figure that out?



At the start of 2005, Leeds had featured in two Grand Finals in seven years.



They didn't win another one until 2007.



Bit harsh on McIlorum to suggest that he should somehow have been able to predict Leeds recent run of success when he made the decision to sign for Wigan. Nowhere in the article does it mention money, indeed McIlorum himself says he wanted to move out of Leeds and get a fresh start.



FWIW, I'd have him at Leeds in a heartbeat. Yes he can be a bit of a hothead, but I could see him fitting into the same sort of role that Buderus and Lunt had, starting at hooker then moving into a more floating role when Burrow comes off the bench.