fighting irish

won't Sam have reach advantage?

I'm dying for some news Archie, waiting with bated breath.

Good initiative.

Four pages now and no negativity. This is a good day, for Rugby League.

It takes all kinds.

That wouldn't surprise me. I hope your wrong.

Will you please remember to include me in the list of invitations?

Steady on butty, steady on.

What would you do with it? Figures please, to stop Damien tearing his hair out?

One aspect of this problem, which doesn't seem to have been mentioned so far, (forgive me, if I've missed it?) is the fact that, just as you say in your post above, the link between mild traumatic head injury (concussion) and early onset dementia is a fairly new discovery, and even now, can't be claimed as proven. There was never any talk of it, when I played and as stated, neither was it known about when you and RP played. The idea then that some employers, ''were aware'' of the risks and ''insisted'' players play anyway is surely, a bit harsh. In those cases where players who may have played their last game say, more than 10 years ago, their claims against their employers (the clubs) or the RFL may be unsuccessful on the basis that the clubs/RFL could not have known. It's crucially important now though that we are seen to act responsibly, in the light of the new information coming to the fore. Given the inconclusive nature of the evidence gathered to date, the line we need to toe is still invisible. The evidence we have so far, is a bit like the statistical claim that smoking causes cancer, but we've all heard stories of some people smoking their whole lives without developing the dreadful disease. So there is some personal (perhaps genetic) component to the development of the disease. So whilst the stats, prove the case (almost) they can't tell us which individuals are susceptible before the onset of the disease. Someone mentioned recently about a new measurement device mounted in a gum shield, which can monitor impact forces (rates of accelerations/decelerations) which might enable some quantification of the product of the total number of shocks multiplied by the severity of the impacts, which can then be correlated with the onset on the disease in later life, so provide guidance on ways to minimise the risk. It sounds like a long-term project though. In the meantime, people will likely continue to get hurt and the games future remains in jeopardy.

Hip hip hooray!

What's up with Blackpool then?

What's your experience with him?

You sound as if you know him personally?

Are you a professional Marketer?

I think Dunbar is saying that the experience of talking to their mates and drinking while the game is on (being ignored) is part of the product. They have succeeded in creating an event culture, which we don't seem to be able to do. An international fixture list in the calendar would certainly help.

Surely this kind of approach isn't beyond our clubs?

This post reminded me of meeting Maurice Bamford on a Level 2 Coaching course. He was a guest speaker/lecturer/coach at the event and asked everyone where they were from. I said ''from Wales''. He said ''so you play Rugby Union then?'' I replied that I had done (although not for a season or two). Then he said ''So you've never met an angry man then?''

There's a clue there.

Wire Quin?

C'est la vie! on your head be it.

No of course not, not yet. But you can conduct a thought experiment, where you imagine some possible scenarios and their likely outcomes over time. Then you can choose which you prefer. This is part of an iterative process you can (should) engage in, before setting goals for yourself, or (in this case) for the new RL club, or rugby league in general. Playing these mind games, prior to an important decision, may help you avoid blindly and randomly accepting ''terms'' of your future relationships which could lead to unhappy/unfair/inequitable outcomes. In other words to avoid falling into a trap. Even better, it might help you get the very best possible outcome! I'm just inviting you into such a thought experiment and to choose which outcome you would prefer.

I agree, but as equal partners.

If you'd rather not discuss it with me, that's ok Griff. I suppose I'm just anticipating what might happen, if we are not equal partners in the new stadium project and it seems to me that, anything other than equality leaves us eternally vulnerable (with no leverage in any future negotiations about use of the ground, or share of any revenue generated). Don't you have an opinion about whether they should demand equal status? Or are you saying that (because its a rugby league club) they should be happy as the ''poor relation''?

Well, what's the alternative? I say, if we can't be equals, we shouldn't help them get it done. You may be right and the existing businesses have the upper hand and will not grant equal status but then, stand-by for high rents and no income generating opportunities during home games. How many examples do we have of this disastrous relationship (to learn the lesson from). Then just wait for the ultimate humiliation of being forced out, (by a huge hike in the rent) because the RaRa club got the promotion they always dreamed of and now no longer need a tenant to help pay the bills. Or just as likely, are cajoled to force us out as part of the ''terms'' of their becoming courtiers to Ra, the great god of the Dark Side. Anyway, I'm just asserting my view, that to enter into this kind of second class (cap in hand) relationship would be a folly and ought to be unacceptable to the new club.