iffleyox

Coach
  • Content count

    216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

175 Excellent

About iffleyox

Recent Profile Visitors

1,193 profile views
  1. I actually think the Tory vote in Scotland might get them 5+ seats - if you're a Scottish Unionist and the SNP go full on Braveheart in their referendum then there's really only one party to vote for. Some polls up there at the moment have got the Tories on 20+%. That doesn't translate into 20% of seats of course, but it might net them more than 2. I predict Dumfriesshire Tweeddale and Clydesdale, Stirling, Borders, and 2 others. Overall, and this is slight fence sitting, I'll go for a Tory majority spread of 40-70.
  2. A propos of nothing, can I say as a non-heartlander that the BBC's coverage so far this year has been a revelation? Last night I finally got round to watching Oldham v Haydock on iPlayer - there's no way I'd have had any ability to watch a match like that before this year even had I wanted to.
  3. before anyone on the M62 has an aneurysm by the way, I'm not suggesting Antarctica should be a top priority expansion area.....
  4. You only ruled out one end of the pedantry! don't give up too easily - I've played cricket down there!* Play on the Antarctic peninsula where there's a top crust of 3-4 inches of snow to cushion the hits and it's warm enough to be wearing trousers and a t shirt if you're working hard.... No reason why not really if you can get enough enthusiasts who know the rules. *HMS Endurance v British Antarctic Survey
  5. 1000 times this - Super Rugby is an overextended joke - largely paid for by the South Africans. It's been great for Argentinean club rugby and not so great for everyone else - at least in the least few years. Now the Saffas are talking about revitalising their domestic competition at the expense of SR it's actually a massive opportunity for the Australian RU to sort themselves out and get a grip of the Aus club game - which they've completely mishandled since professionalism. Whether or not RL can get going in the NRL in Perth is more a decision for the NRL, and must be considered on its merits or otherwise - irrespective of what RU are up to. To be honest, looking at the crowd numbers for WF, the NRL should be asking whether it's worth having a team there regardless of whether WF are there or not. If it is, great, if not, then that might be the right decision too. But worrying about a side pulling 8000 odd or using it disappearing as a reason to go in seems a bit of a non sequitur to be honest. Particularly when 2/3 of the initial WF crowds aren't turning up anymore anyway - they're either up for grabs or not... Bottom Line - NRL should be looking at Super Rugby and learning the lessons - number one of which is that you can have too much of something so make sure you have a cast iron case before you extend.....
  6. possibly - they're a rum lot over Cov way... I do know that in 1913-14 Mose and Cov contested the Midland Counties Challenge Cup final. Cov won, and were then disqualified for fielding players not on the team sheet. Mose were subsequently also disqualified for late submission of their teamsheet (not saying Cov were having a fit of pique mind....) and the RFU decided that neither team should have the cup. Sorry, I digress. Anyway, as I said I don't disagree with the post, just querying that bit!
  7. Don't disagree at all with your post except that Cov RU were founded in 1874* - how are they the descendants of a league side that played 1910-13? Did the league side merge with them or something? *I only know this off the top of my head because I'm a season ticket holder at their biggest rivals and we were 1873.
  8. It's how union is structured from tier 4 down - 12 x Aviva Premiership, 12 x Greene King Championship, 16 x National 1, 16 x National 2 N&S (32 total), 16 x National 3 North/Midlands/South West/London & South East (56 total), etc and so on down. Edited to add - Premiership clubs are obviously rich enough to look after themselves, the 12 Championship clubs get £500,000 or so a season each of central funding which more than covers travel, etc. The National 1 clubs are the ones between a rock and a hard place - they get a "contribution" towards travel and that's it as far as funding support goes. The longest travel distance there is when Plymouth Albion play Blaydon (and vice versa). National 2 North and South get nothing at all but the distances sort of work. National 3 throws up all sorts of crazy anomalies - Bromsgrove are just outside Birmingham and are in Nat 3 SW which means they get to travel, with no funding, to play at Launceston and Camborne. Poor old Launceston and Camborne spend most of their season somewhere well outside Cornwall. No funding at this level either.
  9. The statements from SISU are about investing in the stadium alongside the RU. The statements from Cov are about Cov redeveloping by themselves, with CCFC welcome as tenants, but only once SISU are out of the picture. The other thing the RU club have said is that they don't want more than 12k capacity - it's their stadium which has got to work for them primarily. Over on the Sky Blues Forum the duck is pretty generally regarded as dead with regards to BPA. Never mind Wasps - which shouldn't have been allowed to happen but we are where we are - SISU have utterly screwed this up since before even the Northampton move.
  10. You're aware Butts Park is owned by Cov RU club right? Who've said they'd be happy to talk to Coventry City about whether they'd like to be tenants of Cov RU? But not while Coventry City has its current owners.... The "let's redevelop BPA" was all coming from the Sky Blues side, conveniently avoiding the fact that they don't own it. The owner of Cov RU has said what amounts in so many words to we'll listen but we won't deal with you while your owners are your owners. So it's a non-starter. "Teaming up with the football club at a redeveloped Butts Park" is tantamount to being partners of the tenants of an RU club. Which is basically just what Wasps are talking about (without the football intermediary) but on a smaller scale and with less money.
  11. No real surprise there - Cliff was always quite pro RL. He talks relatively positively about it in The Game That Got Away (from the point of view of a Welsh RU player who always spurned the advances but completely understood why others went north. From memory he was the only RU figure to agree to appear on camera.), and that was filmed in the 1960s.
  12. As an instinctive traditionalist (I've been watching RL properly for all of 5 years and I already think things were better in the past), I've got to say I quite like this idea.
  13. wrote and played the piano part on Life on Mars as well
  14. One's a still-performing classically trained musician and the other one's going to end up selling butter while admitting he was listening to Rick Wakeman like everyone else?
  15. Just to back up a bit - I can see why internally you might not like doing club profiles at the start of the season, but then I can also see why it's the biggest selling issue annually. Personally as one of the itinerant newsagent purchasers rather than subscribers it's the one issue of the year I *ensure* I get because it's a handy one stop shop for an overview of the state of play across the clubs. Actually (as a League 1 partisan I would say this but bear with me) I think there's an argument for biting the bullet and getting it all over with in one month - just stick L1 in with SL and the Championship and have done with it. I read both RLW and Forty20 and can see the role for both - I don't think either could do anything that would stop me buying the other.