• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

171 Excellent

About Tonka

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    High Peak

Recent Profile Visitors

2,632 profile views
  1. Hi there. Re-joining the debate on this one. Two things that are irking me a bit are: 1. Those who think Harry won't do a good job keep talking about the "evidence". With respect, there isn't actually any direct evidence as to how Harry will perform. It is all supposition based on historical factors: the performance of his Grandmother, the lack of support for league in the past, the fact he is the patron of the RFU etc. I am not saying these are not factors that deserve some weight attaching to them, and indeed my fear is that he ignores RL and you are right. But we can't say that this is "evidence" of how he will perform - we are all (including those who see the potential positives) drawing on past performance to make an assessment of how he will do. 2. There has been absolutely no acknowledgement of the fact that the Queen is the patron of over 90 sports and leisure organisation and hundreds of others worldwide. She is clearly stretched, on any view. I wonder how many of those organisations also think she has done very little for them? I suspect many. She is also 90 years old. If nothing else, Harry is the patron of only 6 organisations, all to do with sports. He is young and a patron of rugby union and other tough sports - marathons, Invictus games. He is a young bloke and ex military and, I would suggest, would have a lot of respect for men and women who put their bodies on the line the way they do in rugby league. There are lots of charitable organisations affiliated with the sport I am sure he would like to be associated with. Assuming for a moment that we have to have a patron and that it is better to have a Royal one (leaving your views on Royalty aside - n.b. I am no Royalist), it seems to me that installing a young bloke with time to perform the role and, potentially, more interest in the role than the Queen is a positive move. He seems to me to fit the role better. If nothing else, we are all agreed that the Queen is indifferent. I guess the worst that can happen is that I am wrong and that he actually is so pro RU and anti RL that he actively damages the sport. I would be surprised if he is that irresponsible and malicious, but maybe I'm naïve. I see the changing of the guard as potentially positive. Pure supposition on my part: I do not have any evidence of how Harry will actually perform. I also advocate the sport actively trying to encourage Harry to be involved and welcoming him with open arms. People like to feel welcome, Royal or not. It's human nature. I don't think this is something Stephen Jones would write.
  2. Impossible to judge until we know the details of what is being claimed. Which we never will.
  3. Surely the City game was moved after it was booked... Still surprised/disappointed there are no other options
  4. CHC Your prejudice is blinding you. Just because Harry espouses the good of Union doesn't mean he can't support league and be a great patron. How do you know they weren't re-distributing the patronages and he went "Oooh I love a bit of league can I have that one Grandma?" And she went, "Yeah to be fair I've got hundreds of patronages and I never go and see the league - I feel a bit bad really". And he goes, "Yeah fits perfect with my army stuff and rugby union and marathon and disability sport, I'd love to see a Grand Final" Then get him, Mike Tindall, Will Greenwood, Paul Sculthorpe and some senior players from SL's top clubs out on the lash and see if they can come up with something. He should probably get a trip to Oz to watch the World Cup as a minimum. What's not to like? Or do we just slag him off...
  5. I mean the ship has sailed as to him being patron, which it has. Your choice if you take the view that he won't care so you won't try and involve him. Maybe he'll be rubbish and I'll have to eat my words. Maybe the RFL will never invite him to anything. Maybe they will, but they won't sell it to him. Maybe they'll try their damnedest, and he'll ignore them and go on tour watching England Rugby Union instead. All I know is we've got a young Royal who is into his sports with only a handful of patronages versus a 90 year old Grandma with hundreds. I see opportunity.
  6. It is the nature of the way it is being argued, not the fact of it. Also, as I understand it the decision has been made so I think the debate is how you get him involved, not whether he should be. That ship has sailed.
  7. Now we are talking. We scratch his back...
  8. Hopelessly negative attitude.
  9. There isn't really an equivalent of a royal patron though. Sell it to him; we're always banging on about how good the sport is. That's what I think anyway.
  10. What I don't like is the lack of zing. It's all a bit "If we build it they [should] come [and if they don't well it's yet more evidence to add to the establishment's hatred of rugby league - Exhibit 2,341,653]". If Harry does the patronage its up to the sport to get in there and show him why he should get involved. Be enthusiastic! Don't mope around going, "Eeh well your Grandma never liked us so you won't you Nazi Rugby Union #####". He'll run a bloody mile as anybody would.
  11. You've fallen into my trap there. It's of course entirely up to Harry what he does. The RFL needs to make sure he attends. Come on Calthrop, man. Abandon the rules and the right from wrong and make it happen!
  12. Maybe not, but it doesn't lead you to a conclusion that he will be ineffective either. The RFL has to make sure that if they sign him up he turns up.
  13. The facts are also: - Prince Harry is a patron of 14 organisations. 6 of them concern sport: The Invictus Games Federation, the Rugby Football Union, The Rugby Football Union All Schools Programme, the Rugby Football Union Injured Players Foundation, The Hurlingham Polo Association, the London Marathon. - You have no idea what his personal view on rugby league is, or how seriously he would take it once given a formal role. - A "sport" (RU) cannot "be opposed" to RL. A sport can only comprise its players, staff, clubs, unions. Then you have the press and supporters, and indeed patrons. Each of them has their own mind about what they think about RL. There is no single collective view. I'm not pro-Royal. I'm a bit of a leftie and have always voted labour. But I am sick to the back teeth of people in RL presuming the negative in things rather than the potential upside. Harry is a young, popular Royal who clearly likes contact and endurance sports. He might be great for rugby league and attend every international match, supporting it as vehemently as he does union, and in fact I would expect him to do so if he is the patron. If he falls short, I will be the first to criticise. But I'm not going to cut my nose of to spite my face and assume that he'll do a bad job or do the sport down. If you want to be high-profile, you want high-profile people involved with the sport. Royal patronage is exactly the sort of thing league needs. I'm not prepared to just say, "Oh well he likes Union so he'll be rubbish for League". [Edit: whilst I am at it, I see that the Queen is the patron of over 90 sports and recreation bodies. Is it any wonder she can't service RL properly? Perhaps giving it to someone with only 6 sporting patronages isn't such a bad idea]
  14. This just smacks of paranoia. It has nothing to do with politics. The fact Harry likes Union doesn't mean he won't be a good patron of league or, worse, that he would try and harm the sport. There is nothing to support this conclusion, and his relationship with Union is irrelevant to the discussion. Having a royal patron is just playing the game. Wise up. Like it or not, that's the game. We don't need to go all Jeremy Corbin about everything.
  15. There is an interesting article in the Times today by Matthew Syed, who I really respect as a writer, about why having something to complain about it critical to the success of and interest in lots of sports, particularly team sports. He gives the example of football referees - everyone loves to hate them and says they want mistakes and perceived bias to be eliminated, but the reality is that without them and their errors an intriguing (and newsworthy) aspect of the game is lost. And this keeps the fans interested. I sometimes wonder that if rugby league became the world's leading sport quite a few of its current fans would give up because they'd have nothing to bemoan. Which is not a criticism of fans, it's just human nature to focus on the negatives. Chat forums really bring this out IMO and people become very polarised in the way they express their views.