M j M

Fans coming up with proposals which would murder clubs other than the ones they support are always interesting.

They shouldn't play half their games in Sydney but Fitzroy and South Melbourne would like a word if you think such a thing couldn't work in reality.

Linking it back to turnover would really sort things out and would be inconvenient for lots of people who like to think their clubs are big beasts and like to throw scorn on other clubs. The reality is a lot of the financial split in Super League is between clubs propped up by very rich owners and those who aren't. The latter are in quite a few ways more admirable than the first as they know the value of every pound earned and spent, run very tight financial ships and are less likely to go down in financial flames if and when the rich guy falls in front of a bus or loses interest. The salary cap certainly shouldn't be cut, and it wasn't, but it's not like many clubs could really afford to pay more if they were being run as proper businesses rather than rich men's playthings anyway.

Most likely a combination of Sinfield and Hetherington with Agar agreeing. There's not much reason to doubt any of their abilities to judge a player, particularly Hetherington's. To be fair to Sezer he hasn't played much anyway to form a clear opinion. In any event I think what makes good players not perform well is much more complex than you are suggesting.

I've got a bit of time for Dave Craven but what a crock of **** tabloid article. The lead for that entire article is based on this exchange (7:27). There was no "insisting" going on.

Yes this is the thing. As seen in union oney to the clubs would largely be wasted - on debt pay down or player salaries. And for a ridiculous amount of lost control over the sport's future to people who probably wouldn't have the game's interests at heart in the long run. The sport needs more cash, obviously, but it needs that through income growth not selling itself. I am cynical about any outside experts or consultants who say how great they are going to be but a deal like this on the face of it gives them a lot of skin in the game which is essential. I'm pretty confident it wouldn't have got past the people who saw through the private equity stuff if it wasn't a decent deal.

He'll be back on in a sec to tell us the simple solution is to relocate Widnes and Wakefield to Tumbridge Wells and Woking because some failed ex-CEO of St Helens said something dumb once.

Myler always gets booed by Salford fans so there was no surprise there. I doubt many other clubs fans will bother but who knows. Myler to the halves and Hardaker to full back has to be the way forward if only to get Leeming back to hooker so we don't have Dwyer starting again.

I think Leeds as a side with discipline issues but Salford were somehow even worse today. Perhaps that's to be expected from a Rowley side but it's a measure of how dominant they were in this game that they easily overcame the self-imposed handicap.

Yeah was joking really. To some degree he may need to deconstruct what the side do before rebuilding them and very little of that will have happened before he saw us play a game. The same old issues which we have with performance from some senior players were still there.

Two weeks of Smith coaching and a host of quality players coming back has somehow made Leeds worse than they were before.

Craven's predecessor was Gareth Walker who left a couple of month's ago. James O'Brien from the Hull Daily Mail in turn took over from Craven at the Yorkshire Post.

No way is that a penalty!

Please will someone at Sky turn Liam Moore down.

Wakefield has a larger population than Warrington and St Helens combined. I thought people were all for encouraging clubs in large urban areas instead of these small towns? Or does it depend how your club gets defined when doing it?

My expectation, as with the use of third parties in businesses of all kinds, is that they are simply finding a way for the people who get paid a lot of money to run the sport to dodge taking, and taking responsibility for, the big decisions they are paid for. And that the people with "expertise" come in, take a wad of cash, and leave behind a mess.

There was an email which I got last week promoting it. I think the first time ever i've had a netball one. I deleted it quite quickly but I'm sure some people might have had their interest piqued.

Look forward to it but I can see some of our red-faced friends, who probably don't watch the series anyway, going absolutely nuts. (And I hope it turns out better than Smith, in my view, did Less childishness and fewer silly speeches please).

On the other hand they have been a bit unlucky that the only West Yorkshire club playing in a venue in West Yorkshire was the one with hardly any fans. They'd have been hoping no doubt that Leeds or Cas would be there (but then again hope is not a strategy.)

Gould again.

I think it's more likely to be the injuries they've picked up that's messed things up for them.

!

Video refs on BBC have always seemed very clunky in operation.

It should be matched to the depreciation being charged on the asset that was built, thereby offsetting the cost and the grant over the same useful life. Leeds used to have the same thing and that's how they accounted for it in the UK.

I don't agree with the way building grants ($8.7m of their profit) are accounted for in those accounts - although no doubt it agrees to whatever accounting standards they're using nowadays. It really misleads people who quote profit figures. Conventional UK GAAP would have accounted for this income over the useful life of the asset that was built rather than massively inflating profit all in one year.