Jump to content


Rugby League World
League Express

Rugby League Yearbook 2014-15

Middleton Bull

Member Since 04 May 2004
Offline Last Active Today, 11:18 AM
*----

#3125319 Manu's "misguided chivalry"

Posted by Middleton Bull on 19 May 2015 - 03:50 PM

Yet another dig at the good doctor from Tiny. Whether you like Dr Koukash or not, one thing for which he will always be held in high esteem is that he has seroiusly rattled the cages of some of the more blinkered union apologists.... such as Tiny. :tongue:




#3124627 Sol Mokdad / UAE Rugby League (merged threads)

Posted by Middleton Bull on 18 May 2015 - 11:21 AM

Posted with the following comment:

 

"Rugby union is once again using its influence to attack Rugby League and restrict its expansion.  It did the same in Vichy France over 70 years ago and apparently still feels that this is acceptable.  This has resulted in the incarceration of an innocent man for simply promoting a game of Rugby League and having the audacity to call the sport by its own name."




#3121016 Burgess Watch......

Posted by Middleton Bull on 11 May 2015 - 08:53 AM

I apologise, I shall now consider your constant digs at RU as being naive and uninformed rather than petty.

Oh, the irony.




#3120074 Sol Mokdad / UAE Rugby League (merged threads)

Posted by Middleton Bull on 09 May 2015 - 09:12 PM

Net result was still the same whether it was written down as an official policy or not, although I am not comparing this to the situation in UAE that seemed to start as an argument about branding and has now escalated way beyond that.

Net result was still the same as what? You are not for real.  It was generally Wales that suffered most by "amateur players" exercising their right to try another sport.  It was union that stopped them coming back - nobody elseThat is, union was to blame!!!   Wales union seems to be doing ok today though.  They have not been obliterated by Rugby.  Conversely, what union is trying to do with its latest manifesto is unequivocal - its aim is to obliterate Rugby.  Do you see the difference Tiny from your myopic, blinkered little union bolthole? 

 

BTW, I like how you have trivialised the UAE issue to some little "branding" dispute.  When an aggressor sporting body is telling a completely independent sporting body that it cannot use its own name, then it is a little bit more than a "branding issue". :ph34r:




#3119915 Sol Mokdad / UAE Rugby League (merged threads)

Posted by Middleton Bull on 09 May 2015 - 05:33 PM

You are only focusing on one part of the 'Strategic Plan', the clue is in the title.

The rest of the Plan was to;

 

The RFU's Strategic Plan proposes to target all levels of education within rugby league's heartland, from junior schools right the way through to university, and to play more internationals in the north of England.

 

and

 

It also wants to "encourage EFDR [English First Division Rugby] clubs to sign two or three high-profile England-qualified rugby league stars to attract more youngsters in rugby league areas to the union game

 

and

 

to "target for recruitment to Premier sides and as specialist coaches English-qualified rugby league coaches from the top levels".

 

They have been very successful implementing the last one.

That is reminiscent of O'Neill stating he wanted to wipe Rugby off the face of the planet.  I am sure there are many sporting governing bodies that would like to see competitors disappear, but I can't imagine any sporting body, other than union, that would be so arrogant and conceited as to proclaim it in their manifesto / business plan.

 

As has been stated, Rugby did sign many union players during the shamateur years, but is was simply giving sportsmen a chance to make the best out of their talents.  There was no undercurrent of wanting to see union's demise.  It just simply gave people a choice.  A choice that union tried to deny.  I don't like union signing Rugby players now that union is honestly professional, but I would defend the principle to the hilt.  However, what union is doing now, as set out by Yosser above, is despicable and to proclaim it so publicly is abhorrent and just shows how untouchable they think they are.  The word reptile springs to mind. 

 

Does union still receive subsidies from Sport England?  This should definitely be brought to their attention.




#3118625 Wasps To Coventry

Posted by Middleton Bull on 07 May 2015 - 08:01 PM

I'm aware of the historical aspects, many of which were a disgrace. Today however I've yet to see much evidence of the RFU partake in any such activities.

Italy, UAE etc...these governing bodies probably consist of a couple of part time folk working out of portacabins. Anyone ever heard of rugby (either code) and UAE? We are not talking Australia or England here. Minor nations will always get up to shenanigans as there is no visible authority.

That is where you are so naïve DC.  Don’t you think that it is more than coincidental that all of these minnow / fledgling union nations; Italy, Morocco, UEA and USA, have all acted so similarly and disgracefully towards Rugby?  They have no historic axe to grind, so why take this despicable and aggressive stance against a completely independent sport?  

 

My theory (and now it’s written it becomes fact) is that the top tier unions’ have influenced, incentivised and manipulated these nursery union countries to ensure that Rugby does not steal a march on union on what would otherwise be a level playing field.  We all know what happens when union and Rugby start from a level playing field – reference: Australia, 1908 – present day.  They are running scared that, left to their own devices, Rugby would become the sport of choice in those countries. 

 

The top tier RFU’s have all, throughout their history, used their establishment connections, wealth and subversive tactics to ensure that Rugby is not a threat in their own countries, with the exception of Australia, and possibly NZ, where they have failed miserably.  Now they are concentrating their efforts in these minnow nations, as sinister "Bond villain" puppet masters, to curtail the spread of Rugby internationally.  It is union’s phoney war.




#3118056 Wasps To Coventry

Posted by Middleton Bull on 06 May 2015 - 05:09 PM

As a newby on here I suspect the evolution and very existence of the Cross Code forum is something of a mystery to you. This is certainly apparent from your 'parable'.

 

Allow me to educate you a little.

 

In ye olden days the good folk of TRL often enjoyed a 'discussion' about RU. These 'discussions' could get a little carried away with all sorts of weird and wonderful allegations, rumours and fantastic stories that someone heard down the pub. I believe that these 'discussions' mostly occurred on either the main RL forum or AOB (this is going back quite a few years, so that's a bit hazy).

 

Some of the 'discussions' could get rather heated with some people resorting to abuse and in extreme cases threats and campaigns to get people removed/banned from TRL because they offered a differing view.

 

Consequently the Cross Code forums came to be....but all was still not calm in the world of TRL. Some persisted in their angry attacks and unpleasantness and so some rules were written and enforced.

 

The majority of the cross code forum are indeed RL fans but there are a few of us who would pick RU as out first choice sport but would admit to enjoying the occasional bit of RL if there was no RU to watch.

 

I don't primarily come here to educate people as you suggest, but if this does happen then I am delighted to hear that's the case. I would say I come here to provide some balance to discussions. Can you imagine if the good folk of the Cross Code Forum were left unchecked, with no RU input to their RU discussions? Perhaps you can.

 

If you find my input offensive or of no interest there is an ignore function. I have certainly used this myself to block several posters who just come on here to cause trouble and it's makes the whole experience much more pleasant. Let me know if you need any help putting me on ignore?

So, the Cross Code Forum was created to cater for people like yourself ? - (see emboldened section above) :tongue:  

 

Tiny, I do find your audacity in trying to somehow take the moral high ground quite fascinating.  I suppose it’s a bit like a psychologist trying to understand the machinations of one of his more difficult subjects.

 

You do seem to have some memory issues though Tiny.  You will recall that you only returned to this forum approximately 18 months ago after a lengthy self-imposed but necessary exile.  That exile was to allow you to take stock after going almost completely postal in your previous stint of failing in your feeble attempts to denigrate Rugby.

 

When you returned, you were very contrite and, in admitting that you had been a troll previously, you would behave yourself in future.  That was your message to our moderators in one of your very first posts back.  The mods consequently put their faith in you but, unfortunately, you quickly reverted to type and that faith has now been betrayed over and over again.

 

You claim to have me on ignore, although I know you still read my posts, just as Shadow has bizarrely admitted that he does in one of his earlier posts! :ph34r:    The reason you “pretend” to ignore me is because I challenge your assertions and I do that with facts, for which you have no sensible retort.  As a union fan you are used to getting your own way.  Being challenged is an alien and uncomfortable concept, particularly for someone, such as yourself, who has placed himself on his own very high (but unstable)pedestal.

 

As Dunbar has mentioned, he doesn’t visit union sites to spread the Rugby gospel and nor do I.  If we did, we would be shot down and rightly so.   Your raison d’etre simply seems to be a game of one-upmanship, condescension and disparagement towards Rugby, and all of that on a Rugby fans forum!   This reflects very badly on you as a person but, moreover, you reflect all of the worst aspects of union, which Rugby fans find so distasteful.  Why you would want to nurture a reputation as some sort of latter day Stephen Jones is quite beyond me.  Nobody, not even you, should aspire to that. ;)  

 

 




#3113994 Burgess Watch......

Posted by Middleton Bull on 29 April 2015 - 07:46 PM

Of course I am aware of that. But my point still stands, Union did not see the best of Andy Farrell and League did not see the best of Andy Powell. Do you disagree with that?


I know where you are coming from Dunbar and I am honestly not having a pop, but there is a massive difference between the Farrell and Powell situations.
Farrell went to union having lost more than a yard of pace through his trials and tribulations in League and before he could play a game he was involved in a car accident that damaged his back. This meant he didn't play a game of union until 20 months after his last game of League. When he did eventually start playing he coped very effectively and made it to the elite national level with hardly a backward glance.
On the other hand, Powell came straight from playing union at the elite level, for which he was eminently fit enough, but just simply couldn't hack the pace of League and was therefore operating far from effectively. He was a weak point in the team.
I agree that if either Farrell or Powell had crossed the divide earlier in their respective careers I am sure both would have fared much better. Farrell would have been exceptional and I think Powell would have been a solid club man.
It is also worth remembering the union mantra that theirs’ is a far more complex game compared to the simple game of League. In theory, at least, this means the transition from union to League should be far, far easier. The Powell saga however throws cold water all over that little theory


#3113670 Burgess Watch......

Posted by Middleton Bull on 29 April 2015 - 11:22 AM

Henry Paul won 6 caps (not very many by RU standards and there are plenty of mediocre players that have received more caps than that), over 10 seasons in RU. Those caps came of a four year period, the last of his six caps I seem to recall he got substituted before half-time. HP did very well well at sevens but in 15s he was poor, Hape looked far more at ease than HP did in internationals and performed better.

 

IH got 25 caps which is a fair number of caps but then again James Hook has more than three times that number of caps without being considered a successful international and apart from a brief period has not been in the national side consistently. In his final 18 months IH was strangely keeping Henson out of the Welsh team which given his performances was rather baffling.

 HP was not poor at 15's.  He won player of the season at least once at Glawster so how poor must his born and bred union colleagues have been?.  The way he was treated by England was disgraceful.  Your post above just illuminates your prejudices.  Well done.




#3113341 Burgess Watch......

Posted by Middleton Bull on 28 April 2015 - 04:42 PM

It could be argued that Brad Thorn has been the greatest success as a RU convert, and the most successful RL forward to cross over to RU by a very long way. Having said that his transfer was far from seamless, which tallies with his own comments at his struggles to make the transition and only felt comfortable during his second stint. That indicates there were at least some complexities he had to deal with.

 

Henry Paul, Iestyn Harris and Jason Robinson also commented on the area they all found difficult was adjusting to the amount of information coming at them during the game. Of the three only Robinson manged to deal with that aspect successfully.

Just ask any union convert to Rugby how difficult they found the transition and adjusting to the amount of information coming at them during the game, not to mention opponents' whose intention was to run through them rather than dive at their feet, surrender tackle style, and set the ball.  This also indicates there were some complexities they had to deal with. 

 

Of course, there are many, many union players who never got beyond a secret trial match because they realised Rugby was simply too tough.  The true numbers will never be known though due to the official apartheid system union ran (and still tries to - see UAE thread on main forum).




#3111423 Burgess Watch......

Posted by Middleton Bull on 24 April 2015 - 09:14 PM

Probably, although I hope not as there are far better RU players who can play back row and centre who have yet to get called up.

Burgess put in another MoM performance again tonight and he was a try scorer.  He seems to be coming along nicely.  Don't be too upset though Tiny, I also think that the union comp thingy later this year is just a tad too soon for him to translate his wonderful Rugby skills fully into the ponderous code. ;)




#3111193 My bbc paranoia

Posted by Middleton Bull on 24 April 2015 - 04:52 PM

Ok so we now have not one but two internal conflicts among RL folk

For yonks there has been a justified complaint by RL folk that RU authorities have connections darn sarf and use this to their advantage....but then out of nowhere a lone ranger appears to dispute this bogus claim of the enormous influence of the capital city...as media city is now based oop north and yet nowt has changed.

We've also had RL folk starting threads on here encouraging the community to view RL articles as often as they can..and make comments...as the busier traffic will result in greater supply of coverage. Sounds sensible"..higher demand will mean greater supply. But wait, we've had a small band of foot soldiers questioning all this "ratings are important" nonsense. Nope, newspapers/online coverage don't respond to hits, views, comments...consumer demand is irrelevant. The same applies to TV shows as they are not recommissioned because of high ratings...no they are done so because TV executives will do so out of kindness...because even if only two people watch it...those two shall not be deprived dammit!

Welcome to wacky world

"lone ranger"?  "foot soldiers"?   You've not mentioned the " red indians" yet.

 

You do seem to be somewhat arguing against yourself here DC.  You intimated that if the country was more "north-centric" then RL would get much wider coverage in the media.  I simply pointed out that the big players in English media (BBC and ITV) are now actually based in the north (i.e. "north-centric") and yet nothing has changed.  Now you are saying that we should not be surprised that nothing has changed.  You're confusing the hell out of me DC (not difficult, I know), but which is it to be?

 

You also claimed that London has an enormous influence on proceedings but in your post above you now state that this claim is bogus.  ;)   A little bit of consistency might help your cause DC.




#3110237 My bbc paranoia

Posted by Middleton Bull on 22 April 2015 - 05:56 PM

 

Games in the Anglo-Weslh cup often get little or no coverage. Even the RU European cup  semi finals have little coverage unless an English club is involved, and that is a competition that is far more popular than the RL challenge cup is. Using Manchester United vs Bournemouth as a reference point for a RL game is not exactly a fair comparison. This is arguably the biggest club sport brand in the UK and one of the biggest in the world. Any game involving Manchester United would and does get good national  media coverage. Are Salford seriously even comparable to this. A more appropriate example woudl have been if Nottingshire CCC lost away to Glamorgan CCC, such an event would have received much coverage.

 

I am not sure that Leigh result was actually a shock, particualrly given some of the results this season from Salford. If it received no coverage how did I hear about it on BBC TV and Radio news?  "coverage was pretty non-existant" on this board appears to mean "it was not blanket coverage" since it is comparable to a similar result involving one of the world's top sporting clubs and the most successful sports club in the UK in the last 30 years.

 

Games in the Anglo-Weslh cup often get little or no coverage. Even the RU European cup  semi finals have little coverage unless an English club is involved, and that is a competition that is far more popular than the RL challenge cup is. Using Manchester United vs Bournemouth as a reference point for a RL game is not exactly a fair comparison. This is arguably the biggest club sport brand in the UK and one of the biggest in the world. Any game involving Manchester United would and does get good national  media coverage. Are Salford seriously even comparable to this. A more appropriate example woudl have been if Nottingshire CCC lost away to Glamorgan CCC, such an event would have received much coverage.

 

I am not sure that Leigh result was actually a shock, particualrly given some of the results this season from Salford. If it received no coverage how did I hear about it on BBC TV and Radio news?  "coverage was pretty non-existant" on this board appears to mean "it was not blanket coverage" since it is comparable to a similar result involving one of the world's top sporting clubs and the most successful sports club in the UK in the last 30 years.

Far more popular?

Just checked the RU E Cup against the SL as they are both shown on Sky.

w/e 5th April Live RU EC Friday 3 games played with 114,000 viewers, 93,000 and 64,000

w/e 5th April Live SL Friday one game played 237,000 viewers.

 

 

dhw never let's the truth get in the way of his prejudices ;)




#3109707 My bbc paranoia

Posted by Middleton Bull on 21 April 2015 - 07:39 PM

The two rugby codes are intrinsically linked unlike pretty much any other sport(s), so it's completely understandable that a fan of one code will have a strong opinion on the other.

Say football also had a 9 a side game and no offside rule, fans of the 11 a side game would constantly air their view on it (and vice versa).

This constant comparing is part of the eternal legacy of the Rugby split in 1895.

Yes, but in this day and age those little jibes should not be tolerated.  Can you imagine if CiderWire had said he was a muslim and the other person, when asked, replied that his religion is Islam........but it is obviously the wrong type of religion (snigger, snigger).  It simply wouldn't be tolerated.  You would have the equality brigade straight on your case,  And before you say it - yes, RL is a religion! ;)




#3107504 National Rugby Football League - professional rugby union league

Posted by Middleton Bull on 17 April 2015 - 04:44 PM

It is odd that some people think a rival would not do everything they can to flourish and compete, the whole ideal of upholding the Corinthian Spirit of sport is sweet but in the modern world of competitive sport is somewhat outdated.

 

For decades RL fans were demanding that RU go openly professional, now that we have and are competing as a professional organisation they complain because we are rather good at it.

 

I think there is a common misconception on here that RU is trying to attack RL; quite the opposite, it is working to promote itself.

Nobody in Rugby was ever demanding that union go openly professional.  It was always openly professional................ unless you had a connection with Rugby.  Rugby might have demanded that union go "honestly" professional.  See the difference?

 

Nobody in Rugby is now complaining  about union's "honest" professionalism.  What people in Rugby do complain about is union's devious, underhand and distasteful acts to undermine Rugby.  It was ever thus, even before "honest" professionalism. 

 

Rugby has always been the underdog because it has never had the support of the establishment, the sycophantic media and the vast wealth enjoyed by union.  Arrogant posts like yours, riding on the back of union's privileged position, just reinforce the fact that the Corinthian spirit, to which you refer, is dead in union.  Moreover, it never existed.  How can a sport built on arrogance and prejudice ever aspire to Corinthian values? :ph34r: