RP London

I agree its damaging the competition. However, the idea behind it, which IMHO is actually working is that the club get no gain for over spending. On the field they have gained quite a lot in the past few years by having spent over what they can afford. Now they are being punished by not being able to field their full squad etc. So I think as an idea it has worked. The idea though has plenty of negative side to it and probable doesnt outweigh the massive downside of the poor games. The problem as I see it is that they couldnt force them to sell players, there is little point deducting points, there is no point fining a club that has no money so not sure where else they could turn without kicking them out (which arguably should have been done but back in november).

Again not everything is economic and if it were the economics is more than just simple, we do this we sell 2 more shirts for 20p profit more each. There is the economics of buying the letters/numbers and stock not being used etc etc.. just to be really simple.. There are 13 "playing positions" there are normally squad numbers into the 30s so no they don't "generally represent the players positions".. anyone coming into the squad late, coming through the ranks etc etc wont have this. Players swap positions but it also shows what extra players can do in position but you know the second row can play centre (for example) it doesn't negate the argument to use that, it can enhance it (depends on how you want to look at it). I cannot see any real benefit in it, you cannot see the issue. As I have said the matter is largely personal preference there is not firm case for nor against, Football kept with it RU has not (except for 7s when it is more complicated round keeping the same shirt on). You don't want to agree to disagree but I'll let you argue with yourself going forward.

Personally, for a sport like ours, I think it allows you to understand what is going on on the pitch and why and who is doing it, it allows you to understand what your position is doing (if your a kid for example). even in American Football while they have squad numbers they are within brackets so you still know who your D-linemen are or your Linebackers or defensive backs for example. As I said at the beginning i think there is a lot of personal preference in this argument as I dont think there is an economic argument either way on it. but again i'd say agree to differ on it, though you obviously dont.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.. while I do understand your point (I think he played at 7 enough for that to have been seen as his number until the end of his career) I dont see the massive upside it has... would those shirts still have been sold without that number and name? what extra profit is made from it etc..

I get that but that would have happened without the squad numbers also to be honest.

AML includes every transfer technically but really they only have to be done once per customer its not about every transaction per se (it could be but that is unusual and would be a suspect red flag anyway). They just need to prove where their individual wealth has been earned and that its legit. From there the rest tends to fall into place, unless the person suddenly has more or the transactions are really weird. With people who have good business connections this should be fine. Its not a concerning pattern as its a purchase of a business. The AML checks should, IMHO for this, be a one off check. Then its a case of getting the money across. That is a conversation with a bank (many weeks ago) and within 48hrs or so the money would be in the right place. Even on a personal level when buying a house the banks move massive sums around accounts becuase they understand the transaction that is happening and make it work. Even bog standard you and me can make this happen if the will is there, for someone with the funds these lot purport to have they would have a bank manager on speed dial to sort this type of thing out. Something doesn't sit right with all this. I hope its just incompetence (which is what it sounds like, but is not a good sign either) rather than anything more sinister.

seriously only meeting his bank manager now?? this is utter rubbish.. if they have the sort of money they are talking about then this isn't something that would stop them, and a quick phone call to your Barclays Premier manager (other banks are available, and recommended) would get it sorted! every excuse is implausible.

not to the extent that they'll be making a bucket load on it no.. and to be honest I am racking my brains to think of when I have seen it at an RL match when I have been to them..

Double header?

Thats a very good point (but its also sad, i liked programmes too)

Spot on, "growing our revenues" is the rising tide lifting all ships... We have to look at what everyone brings to the table.

I totally understand this... My big counter would be how much could their successful inclusion bring in.. and successful is key... 2 major french teams in the league etc what is the upside, how big could it be. I don't think its possible to really know. It's a risk but maybe one worth taking maybe not. Personally I'd take it but that is 100% a personal risk call and I understand that. I also understand your position. It's really tough to know the right way to go on Thai. 14 with 2 french IMHO would be the way forward but I think that 2-3 years down the line.

My guess is the legals are really tough but AML is an easy smoke screen or they're having major second thoughts. Maybe thinking they can do the same in a few weeks for a lot less money

I was an AML officer for a major financial institution so I can assure you what I said isn't just conjecture. As you say the only thing that holds up AML stuff are problems.. for it to be held up this long is alarm bells ringing quite loud..

Rfl having double standards??? I'm shocked... Supporting heartlands teams but not expansion teams... Shocked again!! But we all know they don't help heartland teams nearly as much as expansion don't we?

While I do understand that it's negligible extra cost (Aussies are ok with it).. players playing in positions will tend to be similar sizes (don't throw in random exceptions to the point.. there always are hence "tend to be").. It just tends to be a personal preference the cost/benefit aspect is negligible on this.. The Aussies don't like it we seem to.. I don't but can live with it, you might do.

It's often the commercial argument for doing this, you can sell shirts with names and numbers on the back of your favourite player.. I've never seen it at rugby which is my point

Squad number work IMHO if people don't desperately want to be 1-13... So they keep their number and people want that number. Other than that 1-17 is good . No names no numbers... I wager, with no evidence, that no extra money (except printing and actual cost of the number material) has been made due to the fact you can get name and numbers on your shirt

Aml regs don't take anywhere near that long... Couple of days is it . Hiding behind AML is like people who hide behind GDPR because it's just a bit awkward or they can't be arsed to explain the actual rules that stop you accessing data.. AML is scary due to the punishments but really bloody easy if you look at it with a "wise" head.. Utter bullpoo and call them on it

If we're doing that then lets get a game at Bramall Lane.. the ashes was played there once (1902)

not a chance, that would mean planning and forethought and seeing the bigger picture.. (its a good idea so no chance it would happen!)

indeed, headingley is "up the road" for me but I will be looking at Wembley and Everton depending on the dates. Although to be honest I probably would if it had been elland road too, a weekend in London or a look at a new stadium is a pull, in fact a mud bath in a cow shed would be a pull over a trip to dirty leeds to be honest

you jest but we do seem to have a different shirt for the remembrance weekend test so the normal for the first test, remembrance for the second and a "throw back" for the 3rd.. fab!

I disagree as this has been 4 weeks from the start of the season not just 1 blip.. The RFL loosened the rules (wrongly) last week. If i sold our business and the buyer was sitting in the wings but I didnt pay the staff or loans then do people go "oh dont worry about it it'll be ok" or do I have to put the money in to keep the business afloat (its the latter). Yes it may work out ok but the way we are getting there is very very wrong. Salford should 100% have sold players to keep the lights on becuase there was no guarentee of if or when this take over would have happened and they should be planning better (or be forced to plan better).. again the scenario of selling the business (which we are in the process of looking to do so I've got a bit of experience here) you plan as if its not happening so that there is still a business here if a buyer doesnt come in or they fall away (as happens with many sales), equally to have something that is worthwhile to buy... the longer this all goes on the more someone may think, actually I'll wait, its about to go bust and i'll buy it out of administration.

The one thing I would say about the last paragraph is that if they sold a couple of players they would get a transfer fee, that could then have gone a long way to paying the wage bill for a few weeks while waiting for the takeover to come along, it would have also shrunk the wage bill. Selling the players would have been a wiser move than what they have done as it would actually have solved this situation. The money coming in etc would still come in, they would be a couple of star players down but is that such a big issue when there is no relegation? especially if the money means they get more points from the financials being better (1 or 2 increase) which would compensate the 0.5 or so they would lose on average league placings. Arguably a team without those players can still be a competitive team.