I am minded to agree with you. It feels like a reaction to anyone who might pipe up and say it's not about rugby league. Well it isn't, directly, but it's a clear rugby league-related talking point for any rugby league fan.
Regardless of its religious content, I like it as a song. It also reminds me of my granddad and dad (both deceased) who were religious and big rugby league fans. It reminds of rugby league occasions and the history behind them. I am not religious, really, although I do have a spirituality - don't ask me to try and quantify or make sense of it - that the song appeals to. I also think the lyrics evoke a sense of overcoming adversity which, even if you aren't religious, shouldn't take a big leap for you to think about whatever it is you draw strength from and the power of it. This has a direct relevance to sport, thinking about it. Being quiet (or singing for a few minutes) gives you a chance to reflect on what some of these concepts mean for you and for others, for example Danny and Lizzie Jones and their family. If you don't like the lyrics or the song, leaving aside thereligious content, that's just a matter of personal taste.
I would defend anyone's right to sing a song with religious content at a public event or otherwise, just as I would the right to sing one without. Nobody is being forced to be religious or to believe in god. More than that, I would encourage and applaud someone like Lizzie for doing it in these circumstances and, if it were "borderline" whether to have a religious song at a sporting event, let the family do it for their sakes.
Surely Catalan can do better than signing a player who is going to be 34 before the season starts. I watched Richards for many years at Wigan and have some great memories of him playing but I just don't see how signing a 34 year old winger for a season is going to help Catalan. Surely they should be looking for younger French players!!
Yes but he and his family fancy a year in the south of France so you have to factor that in...
I presume you're referring to the Gareth Hock debacle (I can't think of any other time he's threatened legal action). To be fair, we don't actually know what happened there. Prior to the Salford - Leigh match, Derek Beaumont was trying to broker some sort of compromise deal, so it's not necessarily the case that nothing happened.
It's about reputational damage, not financial harm.
Section 1 of the Defamation Act 20131Serious harm
(1)A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.
(2)For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.
Koukash would need to show serious harm.
Salford would need to show serious financial loss.
KL's comments are more likely to relate to Salford not MK personally.
Back on the original topic of interchanges I think the issue is more one of what makes the game better to watch without compromising safety.
I don't think if you reduce the number of interchanges it will make the game any less safe.
I do, however, think that the game (and union suffers from this too) is much diminished by there being too many interchanges. One of the things I used to pride myself on as a forward was being able to grind opponents down so that even if they got the better of you once or twice early on you'd grit your teeth and get the win. If they bloody replace them after 60 minutes you lose that opportunity.
Based solely on Paul Rowley's statement as to what the contract says, if I were Salford I would feel reasonably comfortable bringing an action that says the agreement clearly states that GH was not to play against Salford. The reference to playing "for Salford City Reds" is a clear mistake. The very interesting (I think) question is what the damages are. Damages are losses arising from the breach and aren't necessarily confined to the amounts GH was due to be paid (unless the contract contains a limitation of liability). Leigh could be liable as well under the tort of inducing GH to breah his agreement.
"In the second minute of a clash between bitter local rivals, Wigan’s powerful prop spilled a pass near the opposition try line and was clipped by the forearm of St Helens’ Lance Hohaia. Flower reacted with clinical savagery."
This miscasts the incident, reflected in the fact that LH got a ban as well.
"Ben Flower’s brutal punch raises questions over state of rugby league"
I strongly disagree with this too. It raises questions over the state of Ben Flower!
It's a pretty poorly written article to be honest, but hey ho.