Jump to content

GaryO

Coach
  • Posts

    3,450
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

GaryO last won the day on April 27 2017

GaryO had the most liked content!

Member Profile

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

7,123 profile views

GaryO's Achievements

931

Reputation

  1. Facts from day one would have been good to peruse, keeping back - if that was the case - the proposed funding was the master stroke. Still, there is an increase in payments which help out with day to day running costs.
  2. And there was I as a supporter of one of the CC "big four" buoyed and elated at the initial proposal of CC clubs having what seemed to be a pathway to the big league once again, and I was overjoyed at the thought of seeing my club welcome Wigan, Leeds, Saints ...... et al to our ground. On reflection I was totally dim in my euphoria and I let elation cloud my usual calculated approach to "why". These figures (thanks, Ginge) represent a very well calculated and orchestrated way of "keeping the Buggars where they belong" No wonder McManus, Leneghan and the other rebels have come out - post vote - to acknowledge their support of this sham. I must concede and offer my congratulations to Wood and Rimmer in how they have seemingly been everyone's friend whilst in reality they have stabbed the CC clubs in the back, with false hopes. On the funding alone and without a Ken Davy or a Good Doctor Koukash they will never ever be in a position to compete, ah well back to reality the dream was good while it lasted.
  3. As I stated on another thread Craiq "unless all along it has been ( the new structure) one calculated and very effective scam by the RL to entice a bigger contract from SKY and keeping the 12 teams who start 2016 in the SL for perpetuity" I have not yet seen how the funding is to be allocated, are the figs being quoted actual as published by the RL or are they a supposition for the sake of a debating point? Any imbalance in funding such as stated will not create an opportunity for promotion as was implied by Parky.
  4. How do you define a sponsor, does it have to be a corporate organization, or could it be just a individual, or maybe a very big collection of unnamed individuals lets say donating something like £500K.
  5. Sorry Parky, but I find reading Mr Sadlers reports does not give transparent coverage of a situation, he is like a traffic cop who wants to take you down his road of thinking, nothing at all wrong with that if you are a disciple of his, fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be I am not.
  6. Fair enough Steve, got your message loud and clear, not much else to add.
  7. Steve, sorry to see that your "greymatter" will not extend to the complex intricacies that this new structure will demand and you require something similar, i.e. keeping mediocrity. Can't sat that I blame you really, if I was a supporter of a team that had just won it's first trophy since France surrendered, I wouldn't want to change the goal posts either, although I would always look for improvement. How is it that most SL Chairmen are commenting (and especially the one's from the expected top eight, read E McManus. #4100) at the positives that can be extracted from this new process which will far outweigh the negatives, funnily enough don't recall seeing anything from Mr. K Davy. We will always have the opinions of the one's who are aggrieved by the result of any committee jurisdiction, we have the usual suspects that have been "spinning" for the against - A'La Parky - for a while now who claim that these comments are PR Hogwash, but they have to say don't they, to substantiate their debate of the last few months, and worst of all we have the "I don't agree,so I hope it fails" the category which quite obviously you are a member of. There comes a time in life when there is discord in any family, but the one's that pull through are the one's that stick together whatever their view, we have got what we have got, grasp the positives, let go of the negatives, this can work for everyone, give it a chance and get behind it.
  8. Well he had better pull his socks up and do the job he is payed for, surely half of the Sky Money should be enough, after all if we read the speculation over the new proposed funding that is what the Championship clubs will get to set their strategy in place.
  9. Obviously remembered incorrectly, thanks for that Griff, Just thinking a little further on this subject or more specifically the timing of the "second coming" isn't there a comparison to be made today in that at that time we had a massive player drain to Aussie which included most of the Ashes winning 1970 series and 1972 World Cup teams. Now there is food for thought.
  10. As I recall no bickering whatsoever, it obviously had a different feeling to it as there was a clear pathway back to the "first" which meant something to play for. If I remember correctly, the play of system for the championship at the time was the top four of a 30+ club league,effectively for 75% of clubs the league season was over very quickly. The new second division gave great impetus and involved quite a few clubs in the challenge for promotion.
  11. Please John, If I want a newspaper to give me a different view from Conservative, I will read the Mirror etc, etc. The editorial is belittling of the proposed system, it is very anti the proposed system, to use your (LE) terminology it's like a Party Political Broadcast, but only allow one party to spout then have a vote on it, C'mon. For many many years - well over 40, I could not wait for Thursday to come around so I could buy my Rugby Leaguer, then it changed and was published on Monday then it became LE, and I am sorry to say I considered it nosedived, it no longer gave open minded views, but "I will tell you how it is", attitude. I prefer facts and being allowed to make my own mind up.
  12. I notice the editorial is by LE it has no author. May I suggest it was penned by Peter Mandleson, classic spin reporting. Seemed best to use a political analogy, as with Mr Chaimberlain and Mr. Snow?
×
×
  • Create New...