Lapsed Leeds Fan

Brilliant, and exactly what the great man deserves. What's also nice to see is that a couple of papers have picked up on the story: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-league/clive-sullivan-google-doodle-rugby-b1828909.html https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/14591983/who-is-clive-sullivan-google-doodle-great-britain/

A great article which I think sums up everything perfectly. If you want the very essence of being a rugby league fan you've captured it with the sentence below: "Fans still believe that the game should be at the centre of our national life, but at the same time, nobody would honestly claim that the game has made the necessary sacrifices to achieve it."

If you have a League 1 club with a handful of fans being broadcast to a national audience, the BBC are quite rightly going to talk up the one thing which many of the audience will be familiar with. The BBC are showing a game they wouldn't ordinarily show due to the sole fact that Gavin Henson will be playing. It's almost like some RL fans would prefer this game not to be shown just to prove a point. Personally I can't wait to watch the game as it will the first time I'll have ever seen West Wales play, just as I was excited when I had the opportunity to watch Red Star Belgrade a few

For me it will be concussion which decides the future of the game. We're only at the very early stages of coming to terms with what impact this will have on both codes of rugby. I expect a seismic shift in rules within the next five years for both codes. This could mean union looking more like league, league merging with union, or both codes adapting to new rules and retaining their own distinct identities. Whatever happens, I think any M62 and expansion arguments could well be made redundant by player welfare concerns. It will be how the game is played rather than where the game is playe

Looks like it's this one.

"Don't come away from the opposition line without a point." Only ever said after a drop goal.

I always liked John Champion (before he defected to ITV RUWC coverage). And no mention for Keith Macklin? He was bit before my time but the matches I've seen him commentate on were exactly the type of commentary I like - measured, authoritative and a minimum of hyperbole. I'll also give a mention to John Helm for his days on ITV's Scrumdown. Not the greatest of commentators but his partnership with David Watkins somehow worked.

The Guardian article which discusses this is a sobering read and the comments section is worth a look. I'm in no way a union fan, but the commenters on there seem to understand that something is fundamentally wrong with their sport. Obviously the problem for them is how to fix it. I personally don't think we are too far away from a merged code of rugby with many adapted rules to try and mitigate the head problems - this will probably not come in the next decade but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens within the next 20 years. The union fans seem to get that their sport is now phys

If you read the article you'll get a very different idea of how negative he's been about the grand final, but that's your choice. However I do find it significant that most of the article's critics have drifted away from the discussion since the full text was made available online. It couldn't be that they were quick to criticise something they hadn't actually read by any chance?

Have you read Garry's article which prompted this discussion in the first place? It has already been shown that there are no 'wild claims' in it. If you call a wild claim the fact that Garry happens to think that this wasn't the greatest grand final then so be it, but there are plenty of others who also agree with that statement. Plus the original poster tagged him as misery guts. If he's so miserable why is his article filled with words such as brilliant, really good, excellent, absorbing and strong. Some people on here clearly have a problem with Schofield and are really not shy in sho

I wonder if I've read a different article to most of the posters on here. Here are a few quotes from Garry's piece: "Bevan is a brilliant player" "Fair play to Saints and Jack though, because he spotted an opportunity and went for it." "It’s those little details that make good teams into really good teams." "And fair play to Tommy, because without his excellent kick, the subsequent chance wouldn’t have been there." "I thought Wigan were the better team in the final 15 minutes" "As for it being one of the greatest games going, as some have said, I’m not sure I’d go

Although this article is five years old it makes some interesting points: https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2015/sep/28/should-charities-be-based-in-london

Interesting topic and one which I've often thought about. I don't have a problem with charity executives earning a market salary per se, but to me it's all tied up with how much a charity chooses to spend on overheads versus charitable work. Take for example the numerous national charities which are based in London. Are the overheads of a London office and related salaries really the best use of that charity's reserves? Could the office just as easily be outside the M25? Does a national charity really need to be based in the south east? It may be that easy access to the capital's influenc

I wouldn't say this article adds anything which hasn't already been discussed at length on here. For example: "there are a lot of allegations, some of which that can be proven" - no proof offered. "Those allegations suggest" - again we're back to supposition. Re-reading the Moorhouse book has also revealed that the author uses some questionable language. For example: "Clive Sullivan ...became the first coloured man to captain any team from the British Isles in a major sport". Was calling someone coloured really acceptable in 1995 when the book was published? Also, when

Yes, I was being a bit facetious with my previous reply, but no need for the aggression. I've read every single post in this debate thanks and I'm just putting my view across. I understand that people find my logic flawed, that's fine, I'm not entirely sure I've thought it fully through myself , but my argument would be that without a strong Australian game there is every chance there wouldn't be a game at all nowadays. We are after all talking about the modern game here, not going back to the turn of the last century. The Sunderland MOM award is a contemporary award and my argument woul