Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

121 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

1,934 profile views
  1. But the other two are really signings for next season, just that they’re available now. Suspect DB is more concerned with next week’s semi final than this year’s play offs
  2. The goings on at the end of last season have been done to death. Fact is DB found himself in a position where he couldn't personally afford to plug the shortfall in funding after failing to make the top 4, and dealt with it in the way he felt best. Some disagreed with it, some understood it, nobody particularly liked it. But the club continues, and still need to make signings. I'd suggest the 2020 playing budget will be roughly half of what the ultimately unsustainable 2018 budget was. We've signed two players on 1 and a bit year deals, plus one till the end of the season, which is to replace a retired player. DB will be putting some money in, but nothing like the levels of previous years. As for SL push, not a chance this year. Toronto will be playing Toulouse or Featherstone in the final imo.
  3. The reason RL is behind sports like cricket and tennis is nothing to do with player referrals, and more to do with the investment in the technology used. In cricket they took years to get it to the point they are in now. They replaced hotspot with RTS, they improved the accuracy of ball tracking to improve confidence in the technology. Protocols have been brought in to solve problems rather than confuse them, which seems to be the RL way. "Umpire's call" now doesn't lead to a review being lost for example. In rugby league, we still rely on slow motion replays and different camera angles. Nothing that can take subjectivity out of a decision, which is where the technology would work. Should scrap it imo.
  4. Seeing a few people in various places trying to reduce the win because it was a tie, the extra overthrow etc... but when it’s that tight you can always find something to point to. Maybe some harsh wides given for example. I do like boundary count rather than fewest wickets as a decider. It reflects the changes the 50 over game has had to take to regain some relevance after losing it to t20 for a spell. It’s more about scoring runs, not occupying the crease. If it had been fewest wickets, we wouldn’t have had two kamikaze run outs in the last two balls, and stokes might’ve smacked the full toss into next week. We’ll never know, the game was played to the rules set. Just like NZ concentrated on their net run rate in the last two group games, to make sure they get through to the semis. NZ were desperately unlucky in the final though.
  5. But the term “highest ranked team” has become ambiguous. An article screenshotted earlier in this thread cites that the first team to qualify would be highest ranked. Now it’s based on regular season league position. This in turn means we’re not guaranteed to know where it will be until very late in the day.
  6. The MPG wasn’t a divisional final to determine league champions, it was a play off between to mid placed teams in that end of season league. Hardly the same. RFL could and should be selling tickets to the grand final now, but they can’t because the venue isn’t known until a week or two before the event. It’s ridiculous
  7. Because you're making sweeping generalisations without knowing any individual's circumstances.
  8. Fella, you're suggesting withholding funding from a company that might never even exist. That is idiotic. A points deduction for not fielding a side is fair enough imo. Generally in other sports it would equate to the number of points on offer, or being removed from a cup competition.
  9. The new company that doesn’t exist? Who owns this company? You can argue for stronger sanctions for clubs that miss payments to players, that goes beyond the special measures that the RFL put the club into. But you’re going beyond parody now, saying the club should’ve gone bust and that a company that doesn’t even exist yet would pick up the tab of a liquidated company. And back to my original point, you have no idea what the club did to get out of special measures, and what settlements were reached with the players. You seem to want a points deduction because you don’t like what the owner said in an interview.
  10. So, in order to avoid contracts being ripped up because the company has gone bust, the company should go bust...
  11. But debts were settled. Agreements were reached with the players. Dont suppose you know what those agreements were do you?
  12. But you don’t have any details on what agreement was eventually reached
  13. He might not have run out of money, but he's admitted he didn't have enough to make up the shortfall in funding. Action was taken before all the money ran out.
  14. Do you know anything about what agreements were made with the players?
  • Create New...