Dave T

The point being made was that the cap keeps the spend low and it lacks ambition when one of the things the cap does is drive spend on other areas, in this case the investment can be in areas of infrastructure that is both good for the game and can help to give advantages to the individual clubs. The likes of these three clubs aren't lacking ambition, as claimed, they are investing in other areas to get every advantage, which is one of the things the cap was to do. As we saw in the past, clubs used to just run their stadium into the ground and invest in players, which doesn't help the strength of the club necessarily.

Yes, I think we are combining two slightly different points, it probably is more around player versatility, we often see the likes of Ratchford and Clarke at Wire slotting into various positions during a game. I do miss the difference between the 7 and 6, whereby the 7 was first receiver combining plenty with the forwards and the 6 was usually 2nd receiver linking with the wider players. 13 had a nice versatile link role, some of which is taken by the fullback nowadays. I'm not a fan of the 13 being a prop, but it is what it is. Greg Mackey was a 7, John Woods a 6, and Mike Greg at his best at 13 - all similar skills but quite different roles.

I take your point, but I was thinking on things like scrums, we see various different players packing in different slots, we see many different players feeding the scrum for example. It was also around the 6/7 and 13, which are far less defined now, which I find a real shame, as I mentioned in an earlier post, these were always my favourite positions, and were quite different. Your point on the Cup games is well made, but I suppose we are trying to push the names of the players, so that they become well known on Sky for Super league games. Like I say, I do miss them, but I would miss names on shirts if they now went too.

I think we are in dangerous territory if we abandon colours and designs due to bad performances, we'd be playing naked A quick google search suggests that the 80 nil game was the centenary kit was the green and white hoops rather than the stripes. We wore the stripes in the season we finished 3rd, level on points at the top of the league in 1993/4 and the following year too.

and I thought you lot had some taste...

I think this is an interesting point though, in that actual positions have become a little more fluid too, so numbering won't necessarily help with that understanding, although in many cases it will. In your third para, you mention not knowing the names, I suppose this then comes down to the question of is it more important for the TV viewer to know the player name (on the back of the shirt) or the position (which are sometimes less clearly defined, and even interchangeable during the game).

I can see why people don't like the away kit, as a Wire fan, this invokes many enjoyable memories, straight away this reminds me of Jonathan Davies, Kelly Shelford, Greg Mackey and Iestyn Harris. I've always been a fan of Wire using the green/red on the away shirt. I like clubs using completely different colours for their away kit, and this ticks that box of being different for us.

Wrong.

Brilliant kits this year.

Yeah, I can see that, and I think it works well for things like seeing when interchanges join the field etc. Numbers that can be replaced on shirts for each game very easily, quickly and cheaply is the solution, but one that isn't here.

I do miss 1-13 numbers on shirts, the numbers 6 and 13 were my favourite positions growing up and they were iconic numbers. Now games can go ahead without these numbers even being on the pitch, which is a shame. I think it is a bit of a thing of the past though, as I think names on shirts have a place, I think it is something that can make following the Aussie game a touch harder if you don't know the players. But I do miss them. It'd be good if there was a way for the logistics to work, but in reality there isn't.

Yes, they have gone too far in making it almost a ceremonial sacrilege event rather than just a functional part of the game, but that is just part of them keeping forwards as the most important part of their game. We have taken a more sensible approach IMHO of using it as a means of restarting the game quickly, and I think that should continue, maybe with minor tweaks.

Well in the last world Cup here that crowd was beaten for the final involving Aus and NZ, and we got 67k for the semi versus NZ. That is at least similar. I expect the World Cup Final next year to sell out Old Trafford and some huge crowds for England games.

Warrington, Wigan and Leeds to name just 3 have invested in off-field facilities in recent years.

Of course if anybody was inclined to they could spin a really positive post about how clubs have invested in infrastructure including training facilities as well as stadia since they haven't been able to spend all their money on players.

Are you talking about playoff games versus nothing catchup games that were played rather randomly? The reason Sky were showing up to 5 games a round is because we were staging them at one venue. Sky also didn't show some of the 5th games that were scheduled at the main grounds, they were for OurLeague- although often they were called off in advance.

I'm not sure that's telling at all. They also didn't show standalone games at Hudds. Sky showed all the magic-style games that SL staged, and they were staged across the three grounds.

You've got yourself a touch confused so you can argue. I am trying to disprove the point that expansion is only by setting up clubs in virgin territory, which is what Oxford and some others believe. Edit. In fact you make a post supporting the view.

Yes, your first tackle when you gather the ball is zero.

If we admit Toulouse into SL (using whatever mechanism), and they go from a minor sports club to one bigger than Catalans and become a prominent SL team, would that be successful expansion?

The claim was that Phoenix was virgin territory when the Coyotes were created. Around 30 years after the Roadrunners were formed.

Sorry, to clarify, Google told me they played in the IHL for that period, it's just pretty limited detail.

Coupled with the zero tackle on a turnover from an error I think it may be more than we think.

Google is sketchy on this, but werent they also in the International Hockey League until 1997?

Similar to Catalans then in their former guises. But the point is that it is only expansion if you are going into virgin territories. I think that is wrong. If Phoenix had another team since the 1960s that is not virgin territory and wouldn't meet the 'expansion' criteria that people are applying to RL.