Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by iffleyox

  1. didn't word that well - before the second cup of tea... deleted.
  2. Thanks - I stand by my view. There is nothing there which is talking anything up. It boils down to "we'd like to get games back on as soon as we can, and fans there when it's safe." Good (professional) use of commas keeps those two things separate, and even the "games this season is a careful aspiration and just one of a number of things they're looking at. You can bet one of that number is "no more games this season" but they're not going to talk about that at this point... It's an upbeat holding statement that doesn't make any commitments. Beyond a commitment to look at all the options. Some of those options, the ones they talk about, are nice positive ones. Some of them won't be.
  3. some slightly different quotes here: https://www.pontefractandcastlefordexpress.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/clubs-keen-summer-super-league-return-crowds-when-safe-2853978 basically furthers what I said. They're hopeful they *might* get some more games this year and they'd *like* fans to be there. No one, at the head of any organisation, is going to say other than this unless and until they either are announcing immediate resumption, or biting the bullet and saying "not going to happen." It's just what used to be called "warm bath words"
  4. I can only assume you have never worked in corporate comms because that really isn't what he's doing in that statement. He's making nice mood music noises which basically stop short of saying "there will never be a live rugby match in this country in front of a crowd again" and that's about it. If you parse that report it boils down to "we want to get rugby league played again as soon as we can, it will be behind closed doors to start with, we continue to explore options for getting fans back as soon as possible." To be honest, I could have written that on page one of this thread because it has been the position from the start. And I'd have drafted it in my boss' name pretty much word for word regardless of whether we actually thought the restart was next month, next year, or 5 years away. It literally says nothing but it looks positive.... It's a holding statement that gets people excited while not actually committing to *anything* Edited to add - in fairness some of that is from the headline that has been chosen for the article. Because the text doesn't say what the headline does...
  5. as I said yesterday, I think the FA/EPL is going to have to be the minimum, from which sports then diverge as needed/as they can, according to their own particular circumstances. I think all sports should therefore be talking to them - because there is commonality on bringing two teams together, changing, showering, physio, S&C etc at the very least. They're throwing money at it so why reinvent the wheel? But yes, agree, this is one where really RL and RU should be on the phone to each other. Yes there are differences in some of the set pieces, but fundamentally both are full contact outdoor ball sports. Each will have a particular seasonal overlay given the summer/winter dynamic (which might make a difference), but those differences are points of divergence from core commonality. There's a lot that will be the same (and different to other team sports in the UK), onto which each code then concentrates on dealing with the differences instead of trying to do the whole thing in isolation. Twice.
  6. Just as a final thought, to sum up the longer post above, I suppose what I'm saying is this. It could cost a fortune to do this properly. We don't have much money in RL as a NH sport. That's nothing to be ashamed of. But it does mean that it can sometimes shade over from "doing things on a budget" to "doing things on the cheap." When it's marketing, sponsorship, etc, then it's embarrassing but not the end of the world. Health and safety in a pandemic, I don't want us going over the "doing it on the cheap" line please.
  7. Well this is the interesting bit - it might end up becoming an arms race (not just for support staff). Basically, the sport most likely to try giving this a whirl in the UK is Premier League football. There's a strong case for trying to trying to copy internationally but in law it's probably the UK you need to worry about (well, England and Wales for the law in England and Wales anyway). The only sane approach for a sport will be to mirror or exceed what the FA does in every way if they want to try and restart. Because if something goes wrong and it would have been prevented by something the FA's done but sport x hasn't then sport x's governing body has just invited the roof down on their heads when it comes to the inevitable negligence cases, never mind the trial by media. And that's all the more the case when sport x is a contact sport. Essentially, and much as it pains me to say it, if I were the ECB, the RFL or the RFU I'd be watching to see what the FA comes up with, then working out if we can afford that as a minimum, then working out what we'd need to enhance (or could get away with not doing - probably cricket only I'd have thought) in our own case. All I can say is I'm quite glad I'm not a sports administrator. The FA have got the money for the Rolls-Royce approach, which makes it difficult/potentially problematic for anyone else to go with the VW Golf.
  8. biggest one for me at step one is ensuring any support staff can work within their professional body endorsement and professional liability insurance. That's going to be an interesting one for the coaching staff, never mind the physios etc given the current near complete refusal of insurers to touch Covid 19.
  9. and what he said. but there are potential bear traps even in step 1 IMO
  10. some things to think about certainly: each club has to nominate someone specific, the "Covid 19 officer" to do all the admin and presumably carry the can when something goes wrong each sport to lay out its own protocols which the above officer will have to ensure the club sticks to organised training can only be resumed when it can adhere to the govt's guidelines on social distancing Each sport needs to outline a risk assessment (I've copied the bitier ones): Outlining how regular screening for COVID-19 symptoms will take place before each entry to the training environment. Updated information on the most common symptoms can be found on the NHS website. Screening should include a questionnaire and temperature check as a minimum. Ensuring any practitioners who need to work in close contact with potentially symptomatic members have access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and are trained in their appropriate usage and disposal. More generally, medical staff should only use PPE appropriate for the setting. If suitable PPE cannot be procured without taking away supply intended for key workers then the practice or work requiring the PPE should not take place. Ensuring any support staff within the training environment are operating to the minimum standards of practice that ensure any professional body endorsement and professional indemnity insurances they require are still valid. Ensuring training choices are made to minimise the injury and illness risk/NHS burden as a priority consideration.
  11. Do the FA and RFL really already not*? The RFU does have written operating rules for this (actually it has options of either points average or pools panel) and has implemented the former for everything from the Championship down. Hilariously, in a "not at all open to the whims of the panel or challenge from the affected clubs" way, it went for the pools panel approach during foot and mouth. This time, thankfully, saner heads prevailed. Which was unexpected. *Ok, from their actions so far I can imagine the FA don't but the RFL? I thought football was the outlier in not having a procedure for this... but I'll admit that my RFL knowledge is much better on the pitch than behind the closed doors.
  12. But probables vs possibles used to be a thing. And get huge crowds. But you can't do it as a one off - it has to become a prior to every test series or tournament, and you probably wouldn't get away with it in the era of players making loads of money off appearances and image rights. It used to be a fight to a standstill between the current starting team and the people who wanted their shirts - who were out to bash, batter and if necessary break their opposite number. If that became part of life then it would be what it always was - if you were good enough you'd stand the punishment. But as a one off the current England probables would be screaming blue murder. Which is why it won't happen. In the same way that no one would would pay now to watch Wigan v Wigan A. Wigan A won't be actually fighting/trying to usurp Wigan, it'll be a glorified training session. If it was no holds barred and "I don't care if I break my famous opposite number's legs because I want his shirt anyway"* then maybe... but you'd never get away with it now. *which was basically David Storey's take on it (however played up for dramatic effect) - "you're our teammate until you're taken out by someone that wants to be our teammate." Where the "our" is a group thing, and agnostic to the individual.
  13. not disagreeing at all, but it's not really a rugby point per se, it's more that as the cash ran out he was making more money from Sale than County, so he cut County loose. Which is a rational decision. But if you're a County fan, seeing the investment turn into "goodbye" ground, then you're not going to see it like that. Anymore than if you're an Orrell fan. Loads of clubs from different sports pooling their resources under one owner has so far worked in one place, Bristol. It's totally normal on the continent, but it has certainly gone sour in Wigan and Stockport.
  14. Because County were looking for new investors and were ticking along ok as it was. They got a new investor who said "I'll bring a load of money and my RU team so we can sweat the asset more. It'll all be under the same ownership." In absolute fairness, that multisport model is ok, and is (now) working very well in Bristol. So it's not that they were stupid even to go for that. It's the bit where not only the team was divorced from the rest of it, but, as with Oxford, that people came forward *to take it on those terms* that caused the problems. When the deal went through in 03, they were only a year out of Championship football. The problem, as I think we're going to see imminently with Championship football, is how much it costs. The problem wasn't actually with Stockport being a basket case, they *became* a basket case afterwards.
  15. Fasten your seatbelt... rapid timeline: 2001-2 Stockport are relegated from the second tier. 2003 Stockport are sold to the owner of Sale Sharks and Sale Sharks move in 2005-6 Stockport are essentially handed over to the supporters trus having lost millions and clinging on in the 3rd tier, while Sale retain ownership of the ground . They're then relegated to the 4th tier. 2009 they go into admin to pay creditors (having failed to attract much in the way of investment because they haven't got any assets except players) brief foray back to league 1, then relegated again, then relegated to the conference 2013 relegated to Conference North. Essentially, they were shafted by being divorced from their ground and the ability to therefore receive F&B money, borrow against it, redevelop it, or pull any of the levers you normally could with your own ground. Similar happened to Oxford Utd - although that wasn't another sport coming in so much as the owner selling the team and keeping the stadium, and, in the other code, Bristol RU losing their ground to Bristol Rovers. Obviously none of this was helped by some management and ownership fund and games within County (and Oxford, and Bris RU), but the supporters have got a point that the rot set in when they lost ownership/control of their ground. It made them far less attractive to investors.
  16. True, but it's relatively recent that they haven't had a league football club... Or, cuckoo that they were, a premiership rugby club. In fact, the latter contributed to the demise of the former....
  17. Unless you’ve got an inside source then yes I think you did
  18. I occasionally (I avoid it when I can) have to drive from there to Telegraph Hill - which is just to the west of Dulwich. I breathed a huge sigh of relief when tomorrow's trip was called off. Why? Last time it took nearly two hours.
  19. This. Same with my mum, I dream about her and regularly think i’ll Just tell her something.... 5 years on Feb 17th- who knows where the time goes? mind you, 62 was no age at all. definitely gets easier though, sort of. Different might be a better word. It gets progressively different.
  • Create New...