Broncos forfeit Toulouse game

[redjonn]

1 minute ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

There is an exemption for 'elite sports' competitions. The Championship was classed as elite in 2020 but that status appears to have now been removed (I'm pretty sure that I saw something a while ago that this was at the RFL's request?) so quarantine would be necessary.

ok. thanks for clarification... 

to add, I assume change by RFL to do with costs of testing and following elite covid rules.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

3 minutes ago, redjonn said:

ok. thanks for clarification... 

to add, I assume change by RFL to do with costs of testing and following elite covid rules.

IIRC there was also something to do with the possibility of Government financial support/grants for non-elite sport.

[DimmestStar]

There is currently a 3rd wave in France and a 6pm curfew.

Ridiculous that London or anyone else is expected to travel to France.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

2 hours ago, The Daddy said:

Not fair on Toulouse and puts then at a disadvantage coz I think they could've potentially beat them by twice that amount 

Ha! My initial thought was the same. 24-0 would be a result for us a d save the air fare

Now.... What game do I spend my fiver on this weekend instead? 

[PECETTO]

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

This is the normal RFL “protect the small heartland clubs” nonsense. Why should London alone have to travel to Toulouse, when the other clubs don’t? It’s their choice to run part time programmes, and vice versa Broncos full time, and there should be a level playing field on the issue of Toulouse’s home games regardless of how players do or don’t get paid. Anything else damages the integrity of the competition. 

Pathetic, as usual, and the inevitable Broncos-bashing ensues too. Credit to David for telling them to go and do one. 
 

 

Why should toulouse play their home games away then ?

[PECETTO]

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Why on earth can’t part time players use some of their annual leave to quarantine? It wouldn’t be many days - 4 to be precise. Why on earth should a club have to adhere to different criteria within a sporting competition simply because they have chosen to pay players a full time wage? Why would one business have to incur a bunch of travel cost overheads when their competitors don’t have to?

 

Time for some of the “local league for local people” crowd on here to give their head a wobble. This is RFL incompetence, nothing more, as usual. 

No travel cost : toulouse pay for all the clubs 

[londonbronco]

A truly mind boggling decision.  The RFL needs to have a long hard look at itself and remember that France is at the start of its third lockdown.  A clear-sighted message from the Broncos putting their players safety first.

[GUBRATS]

Unfortunately a consequence of international competition and a pandemic and a sport without very , very deep pockets

[Archie Gordon]

38 minutes ago, londonbronco said:

A clear-sighted message from the Broncos putting their players safety first.

The club statement doesn't mention player safety. I wish it did.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

1 hour ago, PECETTO said:

Why should toulouse play their home games away then ?

You and I both know that as the sole cross-border club they’re inevitably having to accept a degree of compromise in order to compete. I’d imagine they’re not even full members of the RFL. Every single one of their games involves cross border travel, whether by them or their opponent. That’s completely different to the comparison between Broncos and another UK-based club 

[DoubleD]

1 minute ago, Archie Gordon said:

The club statement doesn't mention player safety. I wish it did.

Perhaps because player safety is no greater risk than any other environment, if they’re going on private jet there and back and the only people they’re interacting with are players who have been tested 

[Stuff Smith]

3 hours ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

 

Here is the official RFL statement:

The RFL Board have awarded Toulouse Olympique a 24-0 win for their home Betfred Championship fixture against London Broncos after the Broncos advised this week they would not be prepared to travel to France for the fixture as scheduled on April 17...

I find this rather disappointing...

 

I find it disappointing enough that the RFL centre-align text.

[Yakstorm]

48 minutes ago, Stuff Smith said:

I find it disappointing enough that the RFL centre-align text.

At least their statements are no longer in Comic Sans.

It's disappointing that this has happened, although not surprising. The cynic in me says it was a strategic decision by London to forfeit and nothing in their actions seem to say otherwise.

If they had an issue with the different rules for FT Pro v Semi Pro, you don't leave it until 10 days before your scheduled game in France to raise them and on the flip side if it's player/staff welfare they are concerned about, then it helps to actually say that.

[clogdance]

Toulouse refused to take part in the challenge cup again, but that's okay I guess. 

[nadera78]

I get that there's a discrepancy here, with London being the only team expected to travel to Toulouse, and yes it's unfair, but...you can't simply refuse to play a game. The RFL has no choice but to award the victory to Toulouse. The fact that SL did not do the same last year when Leeds and Sts refused to travel to Catalans really just speaks to that organisation's weakness.

The bigger question is how on earth Toulouse are expected to reach the 70% threshold. It's going to ugly as hell if they win their away games but are denied promotion because no English teams could be bothered to travel.

[nadera78]

2 hours ago, clogdance said:

Toulouse refused to take part in the challenge cup again, but that's okay I guess. 

That's not right. Toulouse and Catalans are not members of the RFL so are not required to play in the Challenge Cup. Catalans choose to, as guests, Toulouse do not.

[Spidey]

9 hours ago, Johnoco said:

I initially thought this was incompetence from London and let's be honest it doesn't look good. 

But it shouldn't even be on the agenda with the current situation in France. It shouldn't have been down to London to refuse to travel -they should have been told not to bother.

They don’t seem to be refusing on safety grounds though.  They are refusing as they are being treated differently to the part time clubs (the same as Toulouse are expected to travel to England every other week)

[gingerjon]

3 hours ago, nadera78 said:

The bigger question is how on earth Toulouse are expected to reach the 70% threshold. It's going to ugly as hell if they win their away games but are denied promotion because no English teams could be bothered to travel.

Don't worry, there's bound to be a well thought through plan about that which will, in no way, dump all over the foreigners.

[gingerjon]

46 minutes ago, Spidey said:

They don’t seem to be refusing on safety grounds though.  They are refusing as they are being treated differently to the part time clubs (the same as Toulouse are expected to travel to England every other week)

Indeed. Safety grounds would involve starting a dialogue - and not just saying "well, play it our ground" (Toulouse could ask, "Which one?") - rather than this basic hissy fit.

Again, other professional sports seem to have resolved these issues, especially when playing in empty grounds. This just looks tinpot all round.

[Spidey]

33 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Maybe they are lying and just don’t want to get hammered in France, who knows. 
But in these circumstances, this scenario could have easily been envisaged and more slack given. Yes, under normal circumstances maybe have less strident rules for part timers - but these are not normal circumstances.
 

If Side A are excused travelling to France, then *under the current situation*, Side B should also be excused, regardless of whether they are full time or whatever. 

The RFL giving “slack” could lead to other clubs taking the mick in the future. No matter their decision on this they’d get flack. As it is, they’ve stuck to the rules they laid out for this season. 
 

No slack was given to Salford last year so at least they’re being consistent 

[Magic XIII]

As far as I am aware, Covid doesn't discriminate between full time and part time players.

[kiggy]

13 hours ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

Here is the TOXIII's club president's take on the matter:

 

Nous nous déplaçons une quinzaine de fois par saison en Angleterre, sans nous plaindre, et il n’y a pas de raison valable pour que Londres ne puisse pas venir une fois à Toulouse.

 

O

 

He sounds a tad miffed... "TO are playing in England 15 times this season, we're not complaining, there is no possible reason why London can't come to Toulouse once"

[kiggy]

12 hours ago, DimmestStar said:

There is currently a 3rd wave in France and a 6pm curfew.

Ridiculous that London or anyone else is expected to travel to France.

Curfew is at 7 but it's irrelevant pretty much as all you need is a bit of paper to say you are travelling outside of those hours for a justifiable reason.

As TO are sorting out all the travelling from UK -> Blagnac -> Ground -> Blagnac -> UK in a plane/bus bubble, I don't think the curfew would be an issue anyway.

My view is that this is tactical, having a lot of top players missing, thinking they would get hammered (no reason to believe in themselves though!) , they thought this was one they could miss

[Wire quin]

How would quarantine affect Londons preparation for the following weeks match? Could they train, could they play?

[Spidey]

14 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

As I say, it’s unusual times. Not giving slack to Salford either doesn’t mean it’s a sensible plan, even if it is consistent.

Possibly. I’m interested to see how things pan out from now on. They may reverse their decision (like they afforded Saints for instance not travelling to Catalans at the end of last year)