bobbruce

For SL reserves to be of any use the next best players in the country need to be in it. When this was first brought up people were saying you could run a reserve team for £300k. So if Toronto Leigh Fev Widnes Halifax Toulouse and probably a few more are spending over £1m on salary’s. What use is a reserve team for a SL club who once you’ve took costs out will be spending about £200k on salaries. This will purely be for show and have virtually no practical use whatsoever. What sort or seasoned professionals do you think squads would be retaining on that sort of money.

RU union have exactly the same system as we have. In typical RU fashion instead of saying try or no try they ask two questions. One means try and the VR / TMO has to prove it wasn’t to over turn. The other means no try and again the VR /TMO has the prove it was to over turn.

No the system we had the decision got sent back to the ref who’d already said he didn’t have a clue.

Of course they can run a reserve team Pilk’s or St Pats can run reserve teams but would they be any use to Saints or Wigan. For SL reserve teams to be of any use the championship would have to revert to part time otherwise clubs are just wasting money.

I have never seen a keep gays in the north march.

I don’t think Sky do pay for it. It costs X amount for the screen to be at games and will come off the top end of the TV deal. If for example we wanted the screen at every game we would lose more money out of the TV deal for each one. Or we would do via a third party with a obvious cost to it.

On a previous thread I’m sure you said you payed the deposit for his house. He is clearly not standing on his own two feet.

I think you’ve made the mistake I did. He isn’t saying anyone’s refusing to commit rather because Austin only qualifies via England (a tier 1 nation). That’s him done he can’t play for any other their tier 1 team. Whereas the likes of Coote who qualifies via Scotland could still go on and play Origin or for the Aussies. Not that that’s likely but that’s the point he’s making.

I’ve not problem with either being in as long as they are fully committed. The Kiwis will without doubt go after them and they will test out just how committed these players are to their new nation. Which will pale into nothing compared to the treatment they’ll get off the Aussies if they ever go on to face them.

Apologies I’ve just reread Sinfields quote and got it wrong first time. I thought he was slating other players for not committing to England. When he was actually saying it shows Austin’s commitment because there’s no going back for him.

That’s my point does it. Legally unless it gets changed we leave on 31st October whether he’s in place or not. To stop that someone has to change the law. I’m just wondering if that’s the actual plan do absolutely nothing let it all happen and then step in claim it’s nothing to do with him and he’s just trying to clear the mess up.