intheshed

Coach
  • Content count

    205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About intheshed

  • Birthday
  1. I don't know what the terracing is licenced to hold but from observation I would estimate around 2-2.5k. It is worth noting that the £2 stand transfer only applies to the two 'new' stands. The other two stands are open to supporters of either team as far as I know.
  2. They shouldn't. Penkywicz himself concedes that his legal advice was to accept the ban, the natural assumption therefore is that there is no convincing evidence of any such error in this case.
  3. In some ways what was reported around the Lockwood case may be of greater long term interest or concern. For any that didn't see it, James Lockwood was subject to an out of competition test in Nov '14 and the results came back clean. A couple of months later his was among a number that UKAD submitted for a re-test apparently using new techniques and it was this that produced the positive result. It was included in a couple of the print stories but not many of the online versions carried that bit. http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/sport/national/12902362.display/
  4. Yuk!! If we can't succeed by our own endevours then any victories we may achieve are bound to feel hollow. Plus I hope Baldwinson, Minns, Foster & Tonks are mistaken when they describe themselves as being on loan at Fev. Otherwise the maximum 5 loan/DR players in a 19 man squad might be about to become a problem for us.
  5. The problem I saw and still see with this type of distribution is that it appears to focus only on making the 7 rounds in the three 8's workable. It seems to offer the potential for four clubs outside of SL(1) to have sufficient funds to possibly take on the bottom 4 of SL but doesn't appear to take account of a need to ensure the 23 rounds played in the the 12's are competitive and attractive to spectators. If the 2nd 12 ends up having 4 teams, maybe 6 for the first year with parachute payments, with sufficient central funding to run at or close to full time grouped with 8 receiving significantly less then it seems to risk numerous one sided games. Making the 8's work is vital but it can't be at the cost of the majority of the season which will be played in the leagues of 12, surely?
  6. Salford are the only SL club with a team in the U20's & I assume its a one off. As I understand it the U20's is envisaged as a development/reserve league designed for championship clubs who want to run more than just a 1st team but can't meet/afford the standards required for (SL) U19's and as such the requirements in terms of scholarship, pathways etc... are mych lower. Salford, being in the state they were last year, couldn't get into the U19s but were allowed to run an U20's. I imagine they will be running a full youth system from next season? Just to add a little confusion there are a couple of championship teams who run both SL U19's and championsip U20's teams.
  7. Rumour has it we tried the 2 coaches approach last week, think we are still evaluating its success!!
  8. Technically we have a coach, albeit an interim one, so no 'coaching' vacancy exists. However as the coach does not appear to be currently attending matches and presumably this extends to non attendance of training there is a fair chance that Mr Long's Football Manager duties will be not dissimilar to those of a coach.
  9. Don't know why but I've got a picture of Chris Burton in me head now.
  10. I know what you mean but with the exception of thr 'butchers apron', which tends to appear every 3/4 yrs, I'm not sure what would be distinctively Fev. Stick a 'proper' collar on it & it would be great for me.
  11. Aye, it also pretty much confirms that Widnes are the only British championship team who will be considered. In addition to reaching a Grand Final or winning the NRC a club must also, amongst other things, have a capacity of at least 10,000 and an average attendance of 2,500 in 2009 or 2010. That rules out Barrow, Halifax(save for attracting circa 5,000 for their last game against Batley) and Batley. It also confirms for that we will not be considered. Link
  12. Lost in translation, huh. In short, I guess I was saying thank you for the additional info supplied but it only clarifies half of the situation for me and the fact that it doesn't address the whole situation is what leads to cynicism and distrust. I hope I also made clear that I understand you can only pass on as much as you have been told. If that's aimed specifically at my post, apologies, it obviously didn't come across as intended.
  13. Let me be clear, I do not seek to suggest anyone is telling lies. However the explanation you have relayed here doesn't seem to me to provide a full answer. In saying that I appreciate the you personally are simply passing on what you have been told. I can happily accept that the comments of the Toulouse Chairman have been 'lost in translation', it wouldn't be the first or last time something of that nature had occurred. The only way I can make sense of this is to assume that LE got their story initially from the Toulouse Chairman's comments(which were misunderstood) and then put this to the RFL for clarification and were told it was correct. That they were told it was correct by the RFL can not, by any reasonable consideration of the circumstances, be attributed to 'translation'. Things would be far clearer if Mr Ledger or the RFL chose to explain how or why they failed to understand their own rules. They are, naturally, free to explain as much, or as little, as they choose but blaming translation when that clearly cannot address their own role in this does them no favours and only invites cynicism, imho, of course.
  14. No prices on at all now, maybe a mistake.