Woolford slams “irresponsible” Hetherington

[hunsletgreenandgold]

1 hour ago, Blind side johnny said:

Do you believe that they haven't done this already?

They would be unlikely to publicise the details of any such plans, and their variables, until the time is right. For one thing forums such as this would go into meltdown when the competing hypothesists have their way.

Yes I do believe they are doing this - that's what I was saying in response to another poster suggesting there's no point in planning until we know when we're going to be back playing. My point was by then it'll be too late - plans need to be kept up to date and altered accordingly based on the coming weeks and inline with how the landscape changes.

[Hela Wigmen]

For me, forcing sides to play three games a week, even a few times throughout a shorter season, significantly deteriorates the standard of the game and I’m not sure crowds would pour in, even if they’ve been starved without live sport. It’s not the way to take the game forward from this pandemic, IMO. 

[rhinos78]

Have any other club owners criticised Hetherington for his remarks? Genuine question because i honestly dont know. If not then it would suggest the money men are all on a similar page and GH is the mouthpiece for there views.

A coaches view like  Woolfords is one thing, an owners can usualy be very different. Any mention of Ken Davey being against Hetheringtons comments in Woolfords article?

[M j M]

1 hour ago, rhinos78 said:

Have any other club owners criticised Hetherington for his remarks? Genuine question because i honestly dont know. If not then it would suggest the money men are all on a similar page and GH is the mouthpiece for there views.

A coaches view like  Woolfords is one thing, an owners can usualy be very different. Any mention of Ken Davey being against Hetheringtons comments in Woolfords article?

They probably think he's an idiot for the comment about player welfare, and he's not very popular with them anyway for myriad reasons despite being the most succesful Rugby League man in every respect amongst them.

But there's no doubt they are all on the same page in the options they are considering.

[rhinos78]

58 minutes ago, M j M said:

They probably think he's an idiot for the comment about player welfare, and he's not very popular with them anyway for myriad reasons despite being the most succesful Rugby League man in every respect amongst them.

But there's no doubt they are all on the same page in the options they are considering.

Thats what im getting at, he's not the most popular to start with, so given what he's said, if other owners didnt agree with him, id of thought there would be articles everywhere with other owners calling him out on his comments and critcising him.

If they havnt, id assume they're of the same mindset, only difference is, GH has been the one to actually say it.

He's getting all the stick, but he could very well be echoing the thoughts of all the owners.

[Hela Wigmen]

2 hours ago, rhinos78 said:

Have any other club owners criticised Hetherington for his remarks? Genuine question because i honestly dont know. If not then it would suggest the money men are all on a similar page and GH is the mouthpiece for there views.

A coaches view like  Woolfords is one thing, an owners can usualy be very different. Any mention of Ken Davey being against Hetheringtons comments in Woolfords article?

I don’t necessarily take that from it. Hetherington is one of the more vocal chairmen in the game, so I reckon most will be used to his opinion being printed everywhere. 

[Blind side johnny]

2 hours ago, rhinos78 said:

Have any other club owners criticised Hetherington for his remarks? Genuine question because i honestly dont know. If not then it would suggest the money men are all on a similar page and GH is the mouthpiece for there views.

A coaches view like  Woolfords is one thing, an owners can usualy be very different. Any mention of Ken Davey being against Hetheringtons comments in Woolfords article?

FYI Hetherington isn't a club owner but a CEO.

[rhinos78]

25 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

FYI Hetherington isn't a club owner but a CEO.

Grow up

[rhinos78]

37 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

I don’t necessarily take that from it. Hetherington is one of the more vocal chairmen in the game, so I reckon most will be used to his opinion being printed everywhere. 

We'l see down the road id imagine, personaly, id be suprised if Hetheringtons the only money man around the clubs with this way of thinking.

[M j M]

1 hour ago, Blind side johnny said:

FYI Hetherington isn't a club owner but a CEO.

He owns about 20% of Leeds to be fair

[Hela Wigmen]

42 minutes ago, rhinos78 said:

We'l see down the road id imagine, personaly, id be suprised if Hetheringtons the only money man around the clubs with this way of thinking.

We play an unnecessarily stupid amount of games to appease club owners, if they want to play three games in a week, they’ll get it. 

[rhinos78]

5 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

We play an unnecessarily stupid amount of games to appease club owners, if they want to play three games in a week, they’ll get it. 

Agreed...And i think thats what they will want, GH is just the first to say it.

Admittedly, his wording left a lot to be desired.

[TBone]

Three games a week with current squads is not sustainable over more than maybe  a couple of weeks. The damage done to players will in some cases be irrevocable and may led to hefty law suits from players who can no longer make a living. As the players get fatigued there will be more and more sloppy tackle, more head injuries, more broken bones, etc, etc.

To harp back to a time when two/three games a week was acceptable is to deny that the modern game has changed from the time when players went for fish and chips, a fag, and a few pints after training. The modern player is bigger, faster and stronger; the rules have been changed to create high energy collisions and to increase the time the ball is in play; making the game more physically demanding.

Playing 3 games a week is just a dumb idea unless you have much larger squads.

[GUBRATS]

11 hours ago, TBone said:

Three games a week with current squads is not sustainable over more than maybe  a couple of weeks. The damage done to players will in some cases be irrevocable and may led to hefty law suits from players who can no longer make a living. As the players get fatigued there will be more and more sloppy tackle, more head injuries, more broken bones, etc, etc.

To harp back to a time when two/three games a week was acceptable is to deny that the modern game has changed from the time when players went for fish and chips, a fag, and a few pints after training. The modern player is bigger, faster and stronger; the rules have been changed to create high energy collisions and to increase the time the ball is in play; making the game more physically demanding.

Playing 3 games a week is just a dumb idea unless you have much larger squads.

Spot on , maybe some of the numpties on here might just get it through their thick skulls , and Mr Hetherington as well 

[Hela Wigmen]

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Spot on , maybe some of the numpties on here might just get it through their thick skulls , and Mr Hetherington as well 

Super League teams play a minimum of 30 games a season, which, IMO, is far too many, which is as a result of what the chairmen want. If the chairmen want three games a week, they’ll probably get it. 

[rhinos78]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

Spot on , maybe some of the numpties on here might just get it through their thick skulls , and Mr Hetherington as well 

Your the numptie here if you think anyone actually wants 3 games a week or that anyone thinks 3 games a week is a good idea. But if the decision makers decide its the only way to save clubs and the game as a whole, it will happen, and given that option, the players will get on board,  they wont like it,  but they'l like the alternative even less. That goes for everyone involved, owners, players , fans...No one will like it, but if the alternatives the game falling apart, everyone will accept it.

Hopefully theres a middle ground solution that dosnt involve playing so often but allows clubs to get through this.

[John Fisher]

Will any non-season ticket holders be able to afford to go to a game every five days? I know I couldn't at the moment.

[TBone]

2 hours ago, John Fisher said:

Will any non-season ticket holders be able to afford to go to a game every five days? I know I couldn't at the moment.

Will many spectators actually want to turn out for 3 games a week? If not then that revenue stream will be eaten up by the costs of putting the games on.That’s assuming that they can actually get the medical/security cover that is needed.

If, however, the games are played behind closed doors then the only games that will be seen will be the TV games. In which case why not play 9s, 7s or even tiddlywinks to decide the rest, hold them all on the same day, and save the players from broken bodies?

[Hela Wigmen]

47 minutes ago, John Fisher said:

Will any non-season ticket holders be able to afford to go to a game every five days? I know I couldn't at the moment.

Firstly, you’re assuming that fans will be able to attend. That’s not a given at this stage.

How many non-season ticket holders actually go to games? The biggest proportion of non-season ticket holders to attend games will be away fans. It will almost certainly affect the number of travelling fans, even if the midweek games are consigned to local games. 

 

[Lowdesert]

22 hours ago, Hela Wigmen said:

We play an unnecessarily stupid amount of games to appease club owners, if they want to play three games in a week, they’ll get it. 

All well and good playing them, but who will go?  Personally, although I don’t go to games as much, once a week is enough for me.  3 games week on week is silly.

[Hela Wigmen]

3 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

All well and good playing them, but who will go?  Personally, although I don’t go to games as much, once a week is enough for me.  3 games week on week is silly.

Will anyone be allowed to go? That doesn’t look likely at the minute. 

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, rhinos78 said:

Your the numptie here if you think anyone actually wants 3 games a week or that anyone thinks 3 games a week is a good idea. But if the decision makers decide its the only way to save clubs and the game as a whole, it will happen, and given that option, the players will get on board,  they wont like it,  but they'l like the alternative even less. That goes for everyone involved, owners, players , fans...No one will like it, but if the alternatives the game falling apart, everyone will accept it.

Hopefully theres a middle ground solution that dosnt involve playing so often but allows clubs to get through this.

Explain the game " falling apart " ?

[rhinos78]

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

Explain the game " falling apart " ?

If i need to explain that then you'v been under a rock for the last month...Credit to your internet provider for reaching you there.

[GUBRATS]

2 hours ago, rhinos78 said:

If i need to explain that then you'v been under a rock for the last month...Credit to your internet provider for reaching you there.

Explain the game falling apart ?

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

6 hours ago, John Fisher said:

Will any non-season ticket holders be able to afford to go to a game every five days? I know I couldn't at the moment.

Some will have to pick and choose games, but what brings in more money for clubs, non-season ticket holders or sky tv? The Sky contract must be fulfilled, it’s the lifeblood of the sport.