• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Adeybull last won the day on January 20

Adeybull had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

388 Excellent

About Adeybull

Recent Profile Visitors

2,202 profile views
  1. The attitude from some (not all) fans (including some Bradford ones) made me stop commenting on RL anywhere other than on here, and recently stopped even that. If such individuals are in any way representative of any significant part of the wider game's constituency, I too fear for the game's future.
  2. Can't see what on earth I said to upset you, or provoke analogies with dead skunks. Forgive the intrusions on here. They were only ever of thoughts and views genuinely held.
  3. Any particular reason why I should let it lie, but someone perpetuating the other side of the argument should not? It was anyway hardly a "throw-away comment" when the post was headlined with it, and explained as "...the single most annoying concept I can recall in discussions on our game since Gutter's "contributions"."? I have no issue whatsoever with people disagreeing with me. On the contrary - how else can you learn? Indeed, on quite a few occasions, a well-argued and substantiated disagreeing argument has led me to reconsider my own views. Whilst it is never much fun to realise you were wrong, when you ARE wrong factually, you need to accept it, learn from it, and move forward? What is harder is where someone states disagreement, couched in derision ("boo hoo"?), but cannot or will not provide a reasoned alternative. If such positions are not challenged, then they can so easily become the received wisdom. Is that a good thing? It was the "boo hoo" derisory comment that prompted my response, btw. Not for the first time, that was uncalled for.
  4. You appear to have stumbled into a thread where - hopefully temporarliy - discussion has centred on a particualar section in a BBC article supposedly related to the future of the game. The points being discussed may have been brought into sharp focus by a recently-failed "club", but are of general application to the next financial failure. In particular, whether the existing policy for dealing with financial failure actually deters others from making the same mistakes (or being as reckless), or whether it is pretty ineffective since it fails to punish those responsible, instead punishing those who seek to salvage the wreck. The latter has consistently been my view, from when the punishment of new owner policy first applied some years ago. Having an effective (to the extent practicable) policy to very strongly encourage "clubs" to operate within their means, in an environment where a number of clubs are/have recently been under severe strain financially, would seem to me to be a subject where the game cannot afford to "have its head in the sand"?
  5. Yet you STILL fail to explain how punishing a new owner achieves the objectives you attribute to the policy! You are annoyed with the supposed "victimhood and avoidance of responsibility inherent in the concept". Yet where is either? If the punishment does not punish those responsible, where can there possibly be an avoidance of responsibility? Other than in a policy which fails to punish those responsible!! And as for "victimhood", then if the new owner is a victim - albeit a willing (if maybe naïve and over-optimistic) one - of the policy, why is this any evidence of "victimhood"? And if people seek to expose the complete logical fallicy of the punishment, how is that evidence of "victimhood"? If youi want to create a level playing field, then one or both of two things need to happen: A: put in place measures like I suggested, to try and prevent, or at worst mitigate the consequences of an owner failing financially; or B: make the penalty for financial failure ejection from the competition, with any successor club to start again in the lowest professionbal league next season - something most Bradford supporters appeared to agree with. SO a new owner is not penalised. He merely starts again from the bottom.
  6. Guess goes to show how little guys like these know about the competition outside of SL?
  7. Yet you said it was "...the single most annoying concept I can recall in discussions on our game...", so it clearly is a matter of significant concern to you? You have confirmed your opinion, but have in no way answered my request for explanation as to why you think punishing new owners protects the "vast majority" That is your right. As it is mine to consistently challenge an argument that I cannot see substantiated.
  8. Which would be all fine and dandy, if someone could please, just explain: how does heavily punishing a new owner at the outset, make HIM less likely to do what his predecessor did? I always thought the idea of punishment was to both punish you for what YOU had ALREADY done, and to deter OTHERS from doing the same? So, this concept of punishing someone up front, for something they may or may not go on to do (albeit the punishment makes the former more likely than it would otherwise be) is a bit of an odd one. Could you maybe explain it to me? Because, sure as hell no-one else has yet managed to. And, at the same time, explain how punishing a new owner in advance in any way protects the vast majority? Maybe, in that world, we should ban every new driver for 12 months, then allow him to go on to rack up 12 points with impunity - since he has already been punished for it? You can punish a "club", for sure - a "club" being a collection of all the many stakeholders involved in it. But the responsibility for the crime lies with the owner. So maybe a better analogy is that you shoot some of the members of a regiment - as well as the next colonel - because the previous colonel made some very poor decisions? Great strategy for encouraging new recruits, eh? I've given my views on the alternative ad nauseum previously - provision of bond or financial security, and power for the RFL to dispossess an owner of the stewardship of a "club" (as opposed to his company) the minute an insolvency event arises. At least MY alternative is only CONTINGENT punishment - bit like a suspended sentence?
  9. Or, in fairness, nothing to suggest they do not? Taken in isolation, anyway. Perhaps what matters more, though, is that the need to do SOMETHING has clearly been recognised? And THAT, rather than whether this is the most urgent or important task to tackle, is surely far better than seemingly nothing happening? I hope what we are seeing is just the start of, and part of, a drive to improve the perception and marketing of the game - since IMO it very much needs it.
  10. Whilst I get the desire to refresh and update the image. I always get a bit apprehensive, when businesses seek to change their logo and/or corporate ID. Especially when it co-incides with the appointment of a new CEO. That is why it is always - to me - important to hear, or at least appreciate, the reasoning behind the change. Not necessarily because it reflects misguided priorities or use of resources - although it can well indicate that, as Iffyfox illustrates earlier. More, because it may SUGGEST that to outsiders, especially those who are not already well-disposed towards the brand. For anyone who believes the RFL and the game are facing major challenges, even maybe existential ones long-term, the charge of "re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic" might hold? The RFL statement (as opposed to the video, since it is the statement that more folk are likely to see or quote): Today, The Rugby Football League has launched brand new visual identity, which includes refreshed logos for both the organisation and England Rugby League. Working in partnership with Matta, a specialist sports branding and communication agency who have worked with clients such as The FA and ECB, The Rugby Football League has created an identity that represents the game, is more recognisable to fans and is aligned with others like England and Betfred Super League. Based on stakeholder research and insight, the new changes will achieve a more unified approach for all of our major brands. The England logo, which sees the reintroduction of the three lions, will be introduced on the playing shirt for the 2017 Rugby League World Cup. does not really inspire or encourage me, to be honest. It does suggest a degree of cost involved, too, at a time of major cutbacks elsewhere. I would certainly be interested in the cost/benefit analysis, and whether (as I can hope) this is part of a wider and positive strategy for better marketing of the game? Since, if it is not, why do it at all? Maybe that is a predictable response from me; but it is a genuinely-felt one.
  11. I posted the link to this article earlier, on the "Heads in the Sand" thread. Some comments on it starting to come through there. Maybe warrants its own thread though - Webby could move the comments? My own view, expressed there - reasonably balanced, objective and thought provoking. It DOES tend to use the decline and fall of Bradford, including how punishing the sons for the sins of the fathers does no good at all, as the example to illiustrate the points, although tbh the analysis pretty well accords with that I and others put forward on the Bradford thread. It is a bit of a strange one in some ways, since it is clearly trying to accentuate positives whilst highlighting concerns for the future. Or, maybe, that seeming contradiction is its intent? Sort of a "built on sand" warning? I am minded to think it could do with being a fair bit longer, to enable wider consideration of issues and inclusion of futher points, plus and minus, but it seems a reasoned and thoughtful contribution to the debate.
  12. It was the fountain in the foyer that was always the dead giveaway for me, along with the fish tank. (Seriously!) That and the company helicopter.
  13. To be honest, that was my take on it as well. I suspect some will indeed challenge its conclusions, although the analysis of the Bradford situation, and what lies ahead, pretty well accords with that I have argued on the now-gone-the-same-way-as-so-many-others Bradford thread. For my own part, this looks to be a considered, reasonably objective and thought-provoking article. Those who believe UK RL has never been so good may contend it is negative talking down of the game? Those who believe the game is doomed may sieze on it as supporting the argument? I am minded to view it as a genuine attempt to tell it as it is.
  14. Another contribution to the debate? Reasoned contribution, or anti-RL bias? You decide?
  15. Attacking you and throwing insults? No mate. Debunking the re-written history and outright lies that you peddle. Once again, you have been shown to have talked nonsense. And, once again, your response is to totally evade the response, and instead seek to justify something totally different to what you actually said. I don't need to resort to insults to make a fool of you. You do a fine job of doing that, all by yourself. Someone above noted this thread had probably run its course now, since it had degenerated into arguments. I agree. I will have no more part in it.