LeytherRob

My understanding from speaking to people involved was that there was an option that Nakubuwai was able to trigger, which the club didn’t think he would do. Was definitely not the clubs choice to keep him on, although you could certainly question those allowing the option into the contract in the first place.

Same here. Despite initially being outraged on the day of the rebrand at the loss of heritage, I’d rather we moved full time to black and gold as a home shirt

At this point the chances of the Wigan game going ahead are diminishing rapidly.

Maybe not but taking out even more loans (as was reported in covering January's payroll) certainly didn't help either. It's not like the argument that 'oh but we needed to maintain a playoff squad at great risk to make it attractive for the new owners' still carries weight either - it's very clear that SRD are/were just a millstone to accept in order to get the land and stadium for the ownership group. They'd have probably been quicker on the money if it was a team with less liabilities rather than the apparent money pit SRD have turned into.

a club statement calling out their own owners is pretty unprecedented. Things not looking well at all.

Happy to see Halton, Mulhern and Charnley all back in the 21, not sure all will play but we're getting close to being back at full tilt. Need a massive response on the shambles of a performance last week.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/66086940 The tournament - featuring the men's, women's and wheelchair competitions for the first time - was dogged by disappointing ticket sales. Financial results, published in full later this year, are expected to reveal the extent of losses. Also here https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/interntional-rugby-league-announces-huge-operating-loss-73760/

I made a comment in response to Phiggins, and you responded to me. I literally haven't done anything but respond to your direct comments aimed at me. If you are going to continue to make things up rather than actually address any of the points I've made, I probably wouldn't make it so easily disprovable. You still seem really confused by the concept of people responding when you direct comments towards them, it's no more or less obsessive for me to continue responding to your comments as it is for you to respond to me. That's how message boards work. If you are done with the debate, that is entirely your prerogative but don't expect other people to just let you throw out ad hominem comments without response.

No mate, that's a massive help. I really appreciate you letting me know what I meant when I wrote those words in that original post. You just can't help yourself with the ad hominem comments can you? It's not obsessive to respond to someone messaging you on an internet forum. If you want to post made up arguments without response then I recommend journals

That's an almost Trump level of projection there, but you do at least make it easy to present these examples without having to go through any 'old messages'. I haven't once engaged in an ad hominem - I made a point, you disagreed with it and I provided clear examples which backed up my point. The only person engaging in persistent ad hominem arguments is yourself. I'm not ganging up on anyone, I haven't engaged once with Binosh on this topic. I'm responding to you because you replied to me, and continue to do so. I'm fully entitled to respond.

'One man driving this' 'has led the charge' No you are absolutely right, I see now that they are completely different statements that hold different meanings. I also explicitly stated that I didn't need to trawl though anything, because you presented that very easy to find example within minutes of making your point(I didn't even have you in mind when I made the original point). So for the 3rd time in a row I'm going to have to point out that you clearly either aren't reading, or aren't understanding my posts. But even so, I am happy to go back and pull examples because if I make a point and there is evidence to back it up, I do so, and I will continue to do so on ALL threads I partake in. It's good faith debate and what isn't is resorting to childish name calling like 'stalker' or falling back to same the strawman argument that I'm somehow blindly defending Derek Beaumont, which as I've already pointed out is nonsense - but I absolutely welcome you to pull a single example from this thread. So to quote yourself, maybe get some perspective and maybe start engaging without having to resort name calling, or don't and eventually the mods will get round to it. Either way works for me.

To be honest, I saw your initial post and groaned because I thought to myself ‘oh god I’m going to have to go trawling through this bilge pulling out the very clear examples of people doing just that to prove my point’. I’m genuinely grateful you saved me the trouble by basically paraphrasing and proving my point yourself less than an hour later. Thank you. I'd also add, if you’re going to label something a strawman argument(even though it obviously isn’t since there are easily found examples), probably best not to follow it up with a massive strawman of your own trying to claim Leigh fans are obsessed with DB. You already tried that once a few pages back and as I pointed out, “Then I think you either haven't read or haven't correctly understood any of the posts I've made on this topic. Because all I've done the whole way through the conversation is point out the fact that this position happened because the majority of clubs in SL made it happen, and not Derek Beaumont.”

I keep seeing this oft repeated as something Nigel Wood engineered, as if he raided the cash safe on his way out the door....but this fee basically comes down to employment law. The clubs forced him out of a high paying role at the top of an organisation - he was fully entitled to financial recompense. If you don't agree then fair enough but the argument is with the law and not the actions of clubs, the RFL or Nigel Wood.

I think you're mistaking correlation for causation. There's nothing to suggest they've installed Nigel Wood because of that fact, particularly when all the negative comments have come after the fact. Also, the plan as it currently stands is that Nigel Wood will be gone come July - so the NRL have nothing to worry if that carries through. And I'm going to tap the sign again because the first time I posted this people were too wrapped up in Derek Beaumont related conspiracy theories - one of the main instigators of this whole process is Gary Hetherington. Gary Hetherington is going to be joining the London Broncos and London Broncos are going to be backed by NRL money. It makes no sense, even from the most selfish and self preservatory levels of motivation, for Gary Hetherington to be chasing away NRL money - his job literally depends on it from next year!

You didn't, but it's an entirely irrelevant part of the argument to get hung up on since we ALL know the primary benefit of NRL getting involved is a cash influx(unless you are going to argue the opposite?). So again, why would Saints be scared of the NRL coming in? Sure, I can understand the logic leap from some quarters to apply that argument to Leigh, but Saints...Leeds? What would they possibly have to worry about from the NRL coming in and all the obvious benefits that would bring - including cash whether you wrote it or not.

Why would Saints be scared of the NRL coming in? They're one of the biggest clubs in the league and absolutely safe regardless of what system or governance is in place. It makes absolutely no sense why they wouldn't want a massive influx of cash from the NRL, there is zero logic to that assumption.

Well it's at least nice to see someone else pop their head above the parapet and show once and for all that it isn't just one man driving this.

I don’t think that’s how predictions work to be honest

Yeah the amount of downgrades they’ve forced through is crazy. You could make a hell of a 17 from players they actively got rid of.

Bit hard to sign someone if you don’t make a bid to be honest.

I mean, it was a pretty obvious joke in reference to the fact that Huddersfield until tonight had led at half time then lost every match so far this year, but I’m glad you enjoyed winning one of the lowest quality Superleague games of recent times.

Watson should have been frog marched out the door as soon as he wanted to get rid of Jake Wardle.

There is no way Golding and Bibby should be anywhere near the starting 17 of a SL club. They would struggle to make the 13 in a couple of championship clubs to be honest.

I think promoting from within only tends to work when you already have good foundations in place, having a good culture/club identity and a good core of squad. Huddersfield post Watson is far too big a rebuild for a rookie, it needs a strong and experienced coach to come in with a full reset.