Jump to content

Broncos forfeit Toulouse game


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Wire quin said:

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

I think they are allowed to stay/train in the team bubble and play the next game based on returning a negative PCR test. Someone may correct me.

I am equally interested in how TOXIII go about this every fortnight. They are allowed to fly in and out within a short window, I presume. No quarantine. Does anyone know?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply
14 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.

The Broncos will also be referred to the RFL Compliance Department for off-field misconduct - failure to fulfil a fixture.

The RFL Board ruled in March that the match should go ahead as scheduled despite the change in UK Government quarantine restrictions affecting France, on the basis the Broncos are a full-time club.

The RFL’s Covid Regulatory Framework allows for matches to be postponed if a club has seven or more players unavailable as a result of positive Covid-19 tests or Test and Trace close contact analysis.

The Framework states that other than in those circumstances:

Where a Club is unable to fulfil a Match due to player availability...the RFL Board shall order that the Club unable to fulfil the Match shall forfeit the Match and the points awarded to its opponent (with a deemed score of 24 – 0 to the opponent). 

In the case of the Club forfeiting the Match, the Match shall not count towards the number of Matches required to qualify for the Play Offs.

This means that Toulouse are now deemed to have played two matches in the 2021 Betfred Championship season, and London Broncos one. Clubs are required to have played in 70% of their scheduled fixtures to be eligible for the top six Play-Offs.

I find this rather disappointing on two counts.  First, it gives Toulouse the game 24-0 apparently on the basis of London being 'unable' to fulfill the game; but they are perfectly able, but are choosing not to, which is quite a different - and I would argue far more serious - matter.  Second, there is no reference to further consideration of the London decision.  Is that really it?  Surely, only anarchy lies down the route along which clubs say, "We don't agree with the governing body's or management committee's views on this matter, so we are going to completely ignore them and do what we like!"

 

Reading that

If nobody travels to France to play Toulouse 

They cannot qualify for the play offs

As they would have played only 50% of games. 

Maybe time for British clubs to stick together 1 doesn't travel, all do not travel. 

How can you in a season like this have P&R 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, coolie said:

Reading that

If nobody travels to France to play Toulouse 

They cannot qualify for the play offs

As they would have played only 50% of games. 

Maybe time for British clubs to stick together 1 doesn't travel, all do not travel. 

How can you in a season like this have P&R 

Toulouse are going To play home matchs in england... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So London are the only club expected to travel to Toulouse to play? Is the reason for that literally because they are the only fully pro team? Sorry but thats preposterous, why should that make things different? As ever the people in charge of our game are making stupid decisions, either all teams travel or none, you ant just change a rule for one individual team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

 

I am equally interested in how TOXIII go about this every fortnight. They are allowed to fly in and out within a short window, I presume. No quarantine. Does anyone know?

 

There are different rules for Elite teams for the travel corridors, TO are considered Elite in France so fall into the same bracket as UK teams e.g. Champion League/Europa league games

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dkw said:

So London are the only club expected to travel to Toulouse to play? Is the reason for that literally because they are the only fully pro team? Sorry but thats preposterous, why should that make things different? As ever the people in charge of our game are making stupid decisions, either all teams travel or none, you ant just change a rule for one individual team.

This strikes me as a crisis for the game and its governance. Yet another embarrassment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:


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 

Thats the thing, they can decide if they want to play in the challenge cup or not like they did a couple of seasons back so they should be able to decide whether they still want to compete in the league if they have to play all their games over here. For me they play in a part time league and it should simply have been a case of either sit this season out or play all your games over here. If they don't like it then tough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, coolie said:

Reading that

If nobody travels to France to play Toulouse 

They cannot qualify for the play offs

As they would have played only 50% of games. 

Maybe time for British clubs to stick together 1 doesn't travel, all do not travel. 

How can you in a season like this have P&R 

London have a point.  Semi Pro clubs don't have to go to Toulouse, but Broncos, being full time, are told they lose the game.

RFL are in a total mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Yakstorm said:

 

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.

They objected when the concept was originally raised. To be fair, their competitors agreed with them - hardly surprising seeing as the “equity” argument is absolutely obvious, to anyone without only one-eye at least 

 

The fact this has rumbled on so long, and the RFL have ultimately taken the position they have, is a disgrace that the governing body alone gets to own. Add into this last year’s confirmation that Hetherington and McManus can do whatever the hell they like, then as frustrating as I find David Hughes usually, he’s bang on the money with this one. 
 

RFL is a miopic, amateur organisation focused on 1) defending the top 4-6 old boys club in SL and 2) propping up northern village sides because they bump into the owners at the usual drinks events in and around Leeds. Usual pathetic cliquey nonsense. 

 

 

 

 

Apparently this site says I "won the day" here on 23rd Jan, 19th Jan, 9th Jan also 13th December, whatever any of that means. Anyway, 4 times in a few weeks? The forum must be going to the dogs - you people need to seriously up your game. Where's Dutoni when you need him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, dkw said:

So London are the only club expected to travel to Toulouse to play? Is the reason for that literally because they are the only fully pro team? Sorry but thats preposterous, why should that make things different? As ever the people in charge of our game are making stupid decisions, either all teams travel or none, you ant just change a rule for one individual team.

Exactly. The logic around this is a joke. And yet still people have the brass neck to come on here and castigate London. Wake up people, the cognitive dissonance in this discussion is off the scale 

Apparently this site says I "won the day" here on 23rd Jan, 19th Jan, 9th Jan also 13th December, whatever any of that means. Anyway, 4 times in a few weeks? The forum must be going to the dogs - you people need to seriously up your game. Where's Dutoni when you need him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kiggy said:

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"

Yes. Nobody else has to. The end. 

Apparently this site says I "won the day" here on 23rd Jan, 19th Jan, 9th Jan also 13th December, whatever any of that means. Anyway, 4 times in a few weeks? The forum must be going to the dogs - you people need to seriously up your game. Where's Dutoni when you need him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

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

Indeed.  If it's safe for London to go, why can't everyone.  If it's not safe for say York, then it's not safe for London.

Nit picking rules by RFL are irrelevent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kiggy said:

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"

Yes

But why can't the part timers go as well.  Why only London?

The competition is already compromised if Toulouse cannot play at home against the rest of the league.  Why should London be treated different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Yes

But why can't the part timers go as well.  Why only London?

The competition is already compromised if Toulouse cannot play at home against the rest of the league.  Why should London be treated different.

Fev were due to go over 1st May. It was postponed by the rfl to be rescheduled later in the season if possible.

I got quite giddy at the prospect of going to toulouse, even for a midweek game when/if tourist restrictions are lifted and it is safe to travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Yes

But why can't the part timers go as well.  Why only London?

The competition is already compromised if Toulouse cannot play at home against the rest of the league.  Why should London be treated different.

I think that it is because London are full time, the RFL have said only full time need to fulfil their away fixtures in Toulouse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

if tourist restrictions are lifted and it is safe to travel.

I think that sums it up Robin, as an individual you can make the choice to travel to France or not, as far as the London player's are concerned someone has decided to remove that privaledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

They objected when the concept was originally raised. To be fair, their competitors agreed with them - hardly surprising seeing as the “equity” argument is absolutely obvious, to anyone without only one-eye at least 

 

The fact this has rumbled on so long, and the RFL have ultimately taken the position they have, is a disgrace that the governing body alone gets to own. Add into this last year’s confirmation that Hetherington and McManus can do whatever the hell they like, then as frustrating as I find David Hughes usually, he’s bang on the money with this one. 
 

RFL is a miopic, amateur organisation focused on 1) defending the top 4-6 old boys club in SL and 2) propping up northern village sides because they bump into the owners at the usual drinks events in and around Leeds. Usual pathetic cliquey nonsense. 

 

 

 

 

This is scary (to me at least).

If the RFL start treating David Hughes, like Elstone treated David Argyle, he might just decide oh bug ger it and pull the plug.

He's only human after all.

They're behaving like a spoilt child, smacking his mom then expecting to be fed at tea-time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:


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 

Does this sound like a "small town" type of argument to you?

They can't be a full member of the RFL as laid down by the RFL - British clubs only.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dkw said:

So London are the only club expected to travel to Toulouse to play? Is the reason for that literally because they are the only fully pro team? Sorry but thats preposterous, why should that make things different? As ever the people in charge of our game are making stupid decisions, either all teams travel or none, you ant just change a rule for one individual team.

The original decision was not made in isolation despite the Bronco's statement. The Championship clubs were fully consulted and the majority agreed with the decision. If London disagreed with it from the outset and didn't plan to travel then why didn't they say so at the time.

The decision by the club and subsequent statement are completely disingenuous.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

This is scary (to me at least).

If the RFL start treating David Hughes, like Elstone treated David Argyle, he might just decide oh bug ger it and pull the plug.

He's only human after all.

They're behaving like a spoilt child, smacking his mom then expecting to be fed at tea-time. 

Argyle's club went bankrupt.  This is a totally different  issue, so let's not confuse it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.