Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
coolie

Will we start?? If not what's plan B?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Everyone else's fault but Dereck's then. What a surprise!

  • Like 3

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Crown Flatter said:

Just when I was gearing up to go out and watch a game, my hopes are dashed. 

Get Barrow in, play each other home and away and keep the whole £125K for those taking part.  That might make Derek wish he hadn't kiboshed the whole thing..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternatively we all could have done what Derek had wanted, and had a curtailed championship season running from the end of September to the end of November (8 games to add to the first 5 rounds already played) where every team would have played each other once and then a top 4 play-off to see who is champions (semis and final). We could then have even kept promotion and relegation, but hay hum most clubs (including Dewsbury) vetoed this as an option.

FWIW Wakefield AFC (football) play at Fev this coming weekend in front of spectators (max 300), but professional football / semi professional (i.e. top 6 tiers) can't have spectators yet, as is the same in RL, Cricket, etc. What makes people think this will be different in 4 weeks time for this Autumn RL comp? So what is different from running this Autumn comp to having a curtailed Championship season?

So maybe Derek was right in wanting the Championship continued? We could have the RFL funding next year then based on this year's championship positions in the league.

  • Like 2

I'm sure I'll think of something funny to say soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Grinder said:

Alternatively we all could have done what Derek had wanted, and had a curtailed championship season running from the end of September to the end of November (8 games to add to the first 5 rounds already played) where every team would have played each other once and then a top 4 play-off to see who is champions (semis and final). We could then have even kept promotion and relegation, but hay hum most clubs (including Dewsbury) vetoed this as an option.

FWIW Wakefield AFC (football) play at Fev this coming weekend in front of spectators (max 300), but professional football / semi professional (i.e. top 6 tiers) can't have spectators yet, as is the same in RL, Cricket, etc. What makes people think this will be different in 4 weeks time for this Autumn RL comp? So what is different from running this Autumn comp to having a curtailed Championship season?

So maybe Derek was right in wanting the Championship continued? We could have the RFL funding next year then based on this year's championship positions in the league.

Derek is always right - I know this because Leigh fans keep telling me so.

If you cannot understand the complexities of testing and tracing with semi-professional sportsmen by now then you never will. This makes your (his) suggestion practicably impossible.


Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Derek is always right - I know this because Leigh fans keep telling me so.

If you cannot understand the complexities of testing and tracing with semi-professional sportsmen by now then you never will. This makes your (his) suggestion practicably impossible.

BSJ,

Please enlighten all of us again.

How does running the Autumn Competition become less of a problem for "...testing and tracing with semi-professional sportsmen..." than running a curtailed Championship season?

  • Like 1

I'm sure I'll think of something funny to say soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Grinder said:

BSJ,

Please enlighten all of us again.

How does running the Autumn Competition become less of a problem for "...testing and tracing with semi-professional sportsmen..." than running a curtailed Championship season?

And let the gob$hite tennis begin 

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣😜😜😜😜😜💪💪💪💪👍😉😉😉

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, The Grinder said:

BSJ,

Please enlighten all of us again.

How does running the Autumn Competition become less of a problem for "...testing and tracing with semi-professional sportsmen..." than running a curtailed Championship season?

Five teams fitted into a relaxed schedule vs 14 fitted into a compressed schedule, including one French team.

It's called maths Grinder - if you can't understand that then it is far too late for any of us to try to enlighten you.


Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Five teams fitted into a relaxed schedule vs 14 fitted into a compressed schedule, including one French team.

It's called maths Grinder - if you can't understand that then it is far too late for any of us to try to enlighten you.

BUT the Autumn competition was open to 25 teams including one French team.

what if they all said yes😂

now that would be proper maths BSJ  ✖️ ➕ ➖  ➗

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Five teams fitted into a relaxed schedule vs 14 fitted into a compressed schedule, including one French team.

It's called maths Grinder - if you can't understand that then it is far too late for any of us to try to enlighten you.

BSJ The Autumn Cup or whatever it's called was originally devised for sixteen to take part. I think that's what Grinder maybe implying. It's no use fans falling out with each other. It's a difficult time and there's no easy solution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

Five teams fitted into a relaxed schedule vs 14 fitted into a compressed schedule, including one French team.

It's called maths Grinder - if you can't understand that then it is far too late for any of us to try to enlighten you.

14 hours ago, coolie said:

And let the gob$hite tennis begin 

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣😜😜😜😜😜💪💪💪💪👍😉😉😉

Coolie - I bet you're just pee-ing your sen and I can't blame you, so I'll bite again 😉

 

BSJ,

As POR points out the Autumn comp was open to 25 teams taking part and the initial proposal assumed 16 teams as Phil points out.

 

So for the Autumn comp let's assume based on that original proposal 16 teams had entered, it was going to be 2 divisions of 8 with 7 rounds played over each division (8 games in each round), so 56 games then 2 semis and a final, giving a total of 59 games. There is 17 players in each team for each game so that is 34 players to test for each game (I know in reality you have to test the whole squad of players in training plus coaches, etc., but I'm just trying to keep the mathematics simple). So 59 games and 34 players gives us 2006 individual tests, but we'll need to do more than one test, so let's assume that it is 2 tests per player per game (once before once after) so that gives us 4012 tests in total.

Now for the Derick's proposal of a curtailed Championship season, there would have been 8 more rounds to play (5 already gone) with 14 teams giving 7 games a round, therefore a 56 games, I believe there were 4 games IIRC to catch up that had been postponed (I am going to assume 4 here for now) makes 60 games, plus semis and final, making a grand total of 63 games. With 34 players a game that gives us 2142 test which we have to double so as cover two test a game, which gives us 4284 test in total.

Meaning that there would have been a difference of 6.7797% with the total number of tests required between the two proposals. Now I am no expert, but I am sure that this means the two proposals would have therefore been every similar from a "...testing and tracing with semi-professional sportsmen..." perspective. Don't you agree BSJ? 😉

It's a good job I did a maths degree or all these numbers would just be a total problem to me. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Edited by The Grinder
  • Haha 2

I'm sure I'll think of something funny to say soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, The Grinder said:

Coolie - I bet you're just pee-ing your sen and I can't blame you, so I'll bite again 😉

 

BSJ,

As POR points out the Autumn comp was open to 25 teams taking part and the initial proposal assumed 16 teams as Phil points out.

 

So for the Autumn comp let's assume based on that original proposal 16 teams had entered, it was going to be 2 divisions of 8 with 7 rounds played over each division (8 games in each round), so 56 games then 2 semis and a final, giving a total of 59 games. There is 17 players in each team for each game so that is 34 players to test for each game (I know in reality you have to test the whole squad of players in training plus coaches, etc., but I'm just trying to keep the mathematics simple). So 59 games and 34 players gives us 2006 individual tests, but we'll need to do more than one test, so let's assume that it is 2 tests per player per game (once before once after) so that gives us 4012 tests in total.

Now for the Derick's proposal of a curtailed Championship season, there would have been 8 more rounds to play (5 already gone) with 14 teams giving 7 games a round, therefore a 56 games, I believe there were 4 games IIRC to catch up that had been postponed (I am going to assume 4 here for now) makes 60 games, plus semis and final, making a grand total of 63 games. With 34 players a game that gives us 2142 test which we have to double so as cover two test a game, which gives us 4284 test in total.

Meaning that there would have been a difference of 6.7797% with the total number of tests required between the two proposals. Now I am no expert, but I am sure that this means the two proposals would have therefore been every similar from a "...testing and tracing with semi-professional sportsmen..." perspective. Don't you agree BSJ? 😉

It's a good job I did a maths degree or all these numbers would just be a total problem to me. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

I'm sure that everyone else will be completely uninterested in this. However, no I do not agree, 7% is a massive under-estimate of the difference between what had developed as viable and DB's original plan for getting Leigh promoted running the competition.

The complexity of testings AND TRACING is the simple reason why clubs withdrew very early as the initial RFL invitation hadn't really taken all of this properly into account (we were all inexperienced in such things at that time). If you look at your old notes and consider that there isn't a simple arithmetic correction but a geometric one then, I am sure you would agree, that one or two individual positives would have made the competition as you suggest it to be completely impossible to run.

Just look at the issues that SL is currently facing in attempting to control a competition with FT employees. To what degree do you think this complexity would increase with PT players?

 

(JPL may be right that this is no time to be falling out, but I am currently very bored. 🤓 )


Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

I'm sure that everyone else will be completely uninterested in this. However, no I do not agree, 7% is a massive under-estimate of the difference between what had developed as viable and DB's original plan for getting Leigh promoted running the competition.

I'm sure Coolie is very interested in this exchange of opinions, as I said I think he must be pee-ing himself. 

2 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

The complexity of testings AND TRACING is the simple reason why clubs withdrew very early as the initial RFL invitation hadn't really taken all of this properly into account (we were all inexperienced in such things at that time). If you look at your old notes ...

Not true - the reason clubs have withdrawn from the autumn competition is that they would have lost more money by taking part than they would by not. my original notes state this quite clearly.

2 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

...and consider that there isn't a simple arithmetic correction but a geometric one then, I am sure you would agree, that one or two individual positives would have made the competition as you suggest it to be completely impossible to run.

Just look at the issues that SL is currently facing in attempting to control a competition with FT employees. To what degree do you think this complexity would increase with PT players?

So why is it that football managed it in the premier league and championship seasons, and now SL are also now managing the situation as on ongoing basis? Then please consider why does positive Covid-19 tests make a curtailed championship competition (that was suggested by Derick - which we are debating) untenable, but the same positive tests in a RFL autumn competition would not be a problem? The suggestion is that one proposal works and the other not is totally nonsense. Just as in the same way as saying 4012 tests is okay but a 6.7796% increase to 4284 is not tenable.

2 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

(JPL may be right that this is no time to be falling out, but I am currently very bored. 🤓 )

Are you falling out with me, because I'm not falling out with you? This is a forum we have debate you think one thing and I think another, it is the way of the world. I'd love to debate it with you down the pub, but for the moment I guess that will have to wait, social distancing and all that.

The facts as I see them are:

You believe that an proposed RFL autumn competition was tenable and that Derick's proposal of a curtailed championship season was not.

I believe neither option was ever tenable, the reasons for this a numerous (but most importantly I still don't see spectators in the grounds during October and there is not enough TV money for championship RL). Also see my original post about costs for the autumn comp. However if one proposal can be proved to be tenable, then because in essence the costs are very similar then both proposals would have been tenable (that is the debate we are having).

Then on the back of that if we were going to have a competition of any description, personally I would have preferred it to be a championship competition and not an RFL autumn comp.

 

Coolie - I recon it is your round the next time we meet up, for just keeping you entertained for a couple of days. 😉🤣🤣🤣🍻

  • Haha 1

I'm sure I'll think of something funny to say soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Grinder said:

t's a good job I did a maths degree or all these numbers would just be a total problem to me. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

G - you do realise BSJ invented mathematics, which facilitated his invention of the wheel as a logical conclusion of how to get from his cave to Crown flats and back!

  • Haha 1

Touch Rugby W(h)inger and part-time Super Hero (Thursday mornings by appointment) :superman:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BATLEY BULLDOGS RLFC :bb:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Grinder said:

I'm sure Coolie is very interested in this exchange of opinions, as I said I think he must be pee-ing himself. 

Not true - the reason clubs have withdrawn from the autumn competition is that they would have lost more money by taking part than they would by not. my original notes state this quite clearly.

So why is it that football managed it in the premier league and championship seasons, and now SL are also now managing the situation as on ongoing basis? Then please consider why does positive Covid-19 tests make a curtailed championship competition (that was suggested by Derick - which we are debating) untenable, but the same positive tests in a RFL autumn competition would not be a problem? The suggestion is that one proposal works and the other not is totally nonsense. Just as in the same way as saying 4012 tests is okay but a 6.7796% increase to 4284 is not tenable.

Are you falling out with me, because I'm not falling out with you? This is a forum we have debate you think one thing and I think another, it is the way of the world. I'd love to debate it with you down the pub, but for the moment I guess that will have to wait, social distancing and all that.

The facts as I see them are:

You believe that an proposed RFL autumn competition was tenable and that Derick's proposal of a curtailed championship season was not.

I believe neither option was ever tenable, the reasons for this a numerous (but most importantly I still don't see spectators in the grounds during October and there is not enough TV money for championship RL). Also see my original post about costs for the autumn comp. However if one proposal can be proved to be tenable, then because in essence the costs are very similar then both proposals would have been tenable (that is the debate we are having).

Then on the back of that if we were going to have a competition of any description, personally I would have preferred it to be a championship competition and not an RFL autumn comp.

 

Coolie - I recon it is your round the next time we meet up, for just keeping you entertained for a couple of days. 😉🤣🤣🤣

6 minutes ago, The Grinder said:

I'm sure Coolie is very interested in this exchange of opinions, as I said I think he must be pee-ing himself. 

Not true - the reason clubs have withdrawn from the autumn competition is that they would have lost more money by taking part than they would by not. my original notes state this quite clearly.

So why is it that football managed it in the premier league and championship seasons, and now SL are also now managing the situation as on ongoing basis? Then please consider why does positive Covid-19 tests make a curtailed championship competition (that was suggested by Derick - which we are debating) untenable, but the same positive tests in a RFL autumn competition would not be a problem? The suggestion is that one proposal works and the other not is totally nonsense. Just as in the same way as saying 4012 tests is okay but a 6.7796% increase to 4284 is not tenable.

Are you falling out with me, because I'm not falling out with you? This is a forum we have debate you think one thing and I think another, it is the way of the world. I'd love to debate it with you down the pub, but for the moment I guess that will have to wait, social distancing and all that.

The facts as I see them are:

You believe that an proposed RFL autumn competition was tenable and that Derick's proposal of a curtailed championship season was not.

I believe neither option was ever tenable, the reasons for this a numerous (but most importantly I still don't see spectators in the grounds during October and there is not enough TV money for championship RL). Also see my original post about costs for the autumn comp. However if one proposal can be proved to be tenable, then because in essence the costs are very similar then both proposals would have been tenable (that is the debate we are having).

Then on the back of that if we were going to have a competition of any description, personally I would have preferred it to be a championship competition and not an RFL autumn comp.

 

Coolie - I recon it is your round the next time we meet up, for just keeping you entertained for a couple of days. 😉🤣🤣🤣🍻

 

You can go to the pub with him😁 You can't go to his house or sit in his garden though if six or more people are in attendance😟

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, J Phil Loxton said:

You can go to the pub with him😁 You can't go to his house or sit in his garden though if six or more people are in attendance😟

Not in Kirklees at the moment. Or at least you can't arrange to meet but could accidently bump (metaphorically rather than physically) into each other there.........

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Differences

1.SL and football are full time so ability to limit contact is much easier than part time players going out to work.

2. An essentially friendly competition against a proper league with promotion and relegation at stake. The Hull Covid outbreak shows the problem. And if a part time player gets Covid through playing then loss of income for up to 2 weeks.

Don't think any serious competition is viable for part time players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Piggy's mate said:

G - you do realise BSJ invented mathematics, which facilitated his invention of the wheel as a logical conclusion of how to get from his cave to Crown flats and back!

Indeed, and you believe that tenable are those pants that you buy for yourself in Home Bargains.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Grinder said:

I'm sure Coolie is very interested in this exchange of opinions, as I said I think he must be pee-ing himself. 

Not true - the reason clubs have withdrawn from the autumn competition is that they would have lost more money by taking part than they would by not. my original notes state this quite clearly.

So why is it that football managed it in the premier league and championship seasons, and now SL are also now managing the situation as on ongoing basis? Then please consider why does positive Covid-19 tests make a curtailed championship competition (that was suggested by Derick - which we are debating) untenable, but the same positive tests in a RFL autumn competition would not be a problem? The suggestion is that one proposal works and the other not is totally nonsense. Just as in the same way as saying 4012 tests is okay but a 6.7796% increase to 4284 is not tenable.

Are you falling out with me, because I'm not falling out with you? This is a forum we have debate you think one thing and I think another, it is the way of the world. I'd love to debate it with you down the pub, but for the moment I guess that will have to wait, social distancing and all that.

The facts as I see them are:

You believe that an proposed RFL autumn competition was tenable and that Derick's proposal of a curtailed championship season was not.

I believe neither option was ever tenable, the reasons for this a numerous (but most importantly I still don't see spectators in the grounds during October and there is not enough TV money for championship RL). Also see my original post about costs for the autumn comp. However if one proposal can be proved to be tenable, then because in essence the costs are very similar then both proposals would have been tenable (that is the debate we are having).

Then on the back of that if we were going to have a competition of any description, personally I would have preferred it to be a championship competition and not an RFL autumn comp.

 

Coolie - I recon it is your round the next time we meet up, for just keeping you entertained for a couple of days. 😉🤣🤣🤣🍻

Your original notes were your hypothesis which, you would agree, is different from conclusive proof that you would have us believe. I believe that, if you extend the logic of those, you can readily demonstrate that Championship RL isn't tenable in any form.

You seem to reject the idea that facts have changed as this situation has progressed.

Citing soccer is pretty well irrelevant, unless you compare PT teams.

The competitions which have restarted have done so entirely to fulfill their part of the television contracts. Unless you know otherwise there was no such commitment from Championship clubs.

If you think that Coolie has ever bought a round then, sir, you are deluded.

 


Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

Your original notes were your hypothesis which, you would agree, is different from conclusive proof that you would have us believe. I believe that, if you extend the logic of those, you can readily demonstrate that Championship RL isn't tenable in any form.

You seem to reject the idea that facts have changed as this situation has progressed.

Citing soccer is pretty well irrelevant, unless you compare PT teams.

The competitions which have restarted have done so entirely to fulfill their part of the television contracts. Unless you know otherwise there was no such commitment from Championship clubs.

If you think that Coolie has ever bought a round then, sir, you are deluded.

 

Round... What's one of them?? 

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

Nope still no wiser??? 

2 questions that can't be answered by a Yorkshire man

1. How much was the last round you bought?? 

2. How much did the last prostitute cos you paid for?? 

Because th'a dunt pay for owt th'i can get fer nowt

.... In both cases 😉😜😉😜😉🤔😁

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, coolie said:

Round... What's one of them?? 

🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

Nope still no wiser??? 

2 questions that can't be answered by a Yorkshire man

1. How much was the last round you bought?? 

2. How much did the last prostitute cos you paid for?? 

Because th'a dunt pay for owt th'i can get fer nowt

.... In both cases 😉😜😉😜😉🤔😁

As Sandy Powell would say:

”Hear all, see all, say nowt,

  Eyt all, sup all, pay nowt,

  But if ever tha does owt for nowt,

  Allus do it for thi sen”.

  • Like 1

Legs, Dews, Legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crown Flatter said:

As Sandy Powell would say:

”Hear all, see all, say nowt,

  Eyt all, sup all, pay nowt,

  But if ever tha does owt for nowt,

  Allus do it for thi sen”.

He also said "Can you hear me mother?".


Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks more and more likely that the autumn competition will not go ahead. The mildly chaotic situation with SL is pointing out the major difficulties already.

Let us hope that the game is in a good position to start up in 2021, but who would bet on it?

  • Like 1

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...