fighting irish Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 5 hours ago, Rupert Prince said: Argyle's club went bankrupt. This is a totally different issue, so let's not confuse it. Yes it did. But of course, he let it go bankrupt didn't he? If he'd felt welcome, warmly embraced by the organisation he was funding (outrageously) to the tune of 15 million dollars, he might have kept his club afloat. Elstone's treatment of him and Toronto Wolfpack was laced with sneering contempt and a bitter distaste. It was no secret. We forget these people (billionaires/millionaires) are human beings with feelings. All I'm saying is we need to tread carefully here and stop treating them differently just because they've got a few quid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 1 hour ago, Blind side johnny said: 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. Yup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 I see this differently from a lot of you, why should London have to travel if nobody else has to? There shouldn’t be one rule for one and one for everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 7 minutes ago, Eddie said: I see this differently from a lot of you, why should London have to travel if nobody else has to? There shouldn’t be one rule for one and one for everyone else. The rules were made clear weeks ago. If London were a professional outfit, as opposed to a tracksuit sales opportunity, they'd have been able to sort this out. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hull Kingston Bronco Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 5 minutes ago, Eddie said: I see this differently from a lot of you, why should London have to travel if nobody else has to? There shouldn’t be one rule for one and one for everyone else. Exactly this. It’s really not that complex - there is zero equitable reason why only one British-based team should have to travel. Should be the same for all, that’s the very principle on which sport is based. I’ve every sympathy for Toulouse in this situation, as the only cross-border team (much like the Warriors in the NRL) they have hard choices to make. Nothing in that necessitates the other sides being treated differently to each other. It’s a disgrace. Anyone arguing the “oh but London didn’t object in the correct manner at the correct time” process straw man is just trying to side-step the core issue because they know they’re on quicksand with it 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 More sharing options...
Hull Kingston Bronco Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 1 minute ago, gingerjon said: The rules were made clear weeks ago. If London were a professional outfit, as opposed to a tracksuit sales opportunity, they'd have been able to sort this out. It takes two to tango. I’m no fan of Hughes’ leadership, but if you can’t read between the lines and see the club has never conceded this issue and the RFL has just stuck their fingers in their ears and gone “la, la, la, can’t hear you” until we finally said “ah sod it” then you’re being too naive mate 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 More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 5 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said: It takes two to tango. I’m no fan of Hughes’ leadership, but if you can’t read between the lines and see the club has never conceded this issue and the RFL has just stuck their fingers in their ears and gone “la, la, la, can’t hear you” until we finally said “ah sod it” then you’re being too naive mate I can pretty easily read between the lines that the club never accepted it. Probably because it involves work and actually playing rugby matches. Unfortunately, we're not the ones with any power in this situation. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic XIII Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 7 minutes ago, gingerjon said: The rules were made clear weeks ago. If London were a professional outfit, as opposed to a tracksuit sales opportunity, they'd have been able to sort this out. You'll know from this forum that I have an ever decreasing amount of empathy /sympathy with LB, but in this instance I feel an element of support for the club. Why one rule for one and a different one for another. That said, I would be interested to know when LB advised RFL their intention not to fulfil the fixture, before or after the Halifax fixture - that might shut a few up if before !!! How about this for a thought - Monkey and his mates have taken the view, lets get back to the times when it was LB against the World, in an attempt to galvanise the current fracturing support base ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Gordon Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 16 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said: It takes two to tango. I’m no fan of Hughes’ leadership, but if you can’t read between the lines and see the club has never conceded this issue and the RFL has just stuck their fingers in their ears and gone “la, la, la, can’t hear you” until we finally said “ah sod it” then you’re being too naive mate The club *did* concede the issue. They grumbled, moaned and objected but agreed to go until this week. If they'd refused to go back in March, they'd have been in a much stronger position. Who could have argued with them? So if they were always going to refuse, why wait until now when it looks opportunistic? My reading between the lines is that they want to focus on the Oldham game given that they are looking like a shambles. On the core issue of is this fair? Of course not. It's therefore wholly unclear why London changed its position from a grumbling acceptance - they were advertising the game on ouRLeague earlier this week! - to refusing to fulfil the fixture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scubby Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 24-0 pah! It was 18-0 back when I played. Bloody defences getting worse I tell ya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 19 minutes ago, Magic XIII said: You'll know from this forum that I have an ever decreasing amount of empathy /sympathy with LB, but in this instance I feel an element of support for the club. Why one rule for one and a different one for another. That said, I would be interested to know when LB advised RFL their intention not to fulfil the fixture, before or after the Halifax fixture - that might shut a few up if before !!! How about this for a thought - Monkey and his mates have taken the view, lets get back to the times when it was LB against the World, in an attempt to galvanise the current fracturing support base ! I have moderate levels of sympathy about the view that it's a ridiculous rule. It is. But sulking is never a good look. But I can't see anything's actually changed since the season structure was announced. The game would be perfectly okay to go ahead with the set-up proposed (and paid for) by Toulouse and AS THEY ARE MEANT TO BE FULL TIME PROFESSIONALS it's not like London should have anything better to do other than playing some rugby. Christ, the performances so far show we need all the match practice we can get. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Reiver Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 https://www.rugby-league.com/article/57735/statement--toulouse-olympique The announcement on approach on 11 March 2021 might be part of the root of the problem. Part-time clubs treated one way (two games postponed) and full time differently (to go ahead - 2 weeks earlier than the postponed ones). Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelic Cynic Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 The club has no sympathy from me - particularly as it appears,like many others,to treat genuine rugby league followers with total disdain. I'm guessing the head coach and players were well prepped for the game https://www.totalrl.com/ward-happy-for-broncos-to-play-in-france/ Many clubs have played 'home ' games away, and managed without everything being on a level playing field. There is nothing about the entire sport of rugby league,being on a level playing field. The two French clubs,in this ' professional ' sport,seem to have had the filthiest end of the stick. No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 Don't know what to make of this mess, really. I see no reason why the game could not have gone ahead either in France or in the UK. Feels like managed decline of the club... Or brinkmanship over money. I really had hoped all those years ago the the Branson takeover would have seen the club lay down solid foundations. Went to quite a few games at the Stoop and it felt a really positive experience. Still have the shirt and the CD they issued as part of the loyalty scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scubby Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 13 minutes ago, JohnM said: Don't know what to make of this mess, really. I see no reason why the game could not have gone ahead either in France or in the UK. Feels like managed decline of the club... Or brinkmanship over money. I really had hoped all those years ago the the Branson takeover would have seen the club lay down solid foundations. Went to quite a few games at the Stoop and it felt a really positive experience. Still have the shirt and the CD they issued as part of the loyalty scheme. I assume you mean CD as in audio as opposed to the pharmaceutical variety? Branson does like to get people addicted to his brands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve oates Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 5 hours ago, Spidey said: 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) Good point, but wasn't that a Superleague decision? This is an RFL decision? Whichever way, this is for me is one rule for part time clubs and another rule for full time clubs. Fundamentally unfair?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Human Punk Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 Have I got this entirely wrong, or is it not that the Broncos full time status makes them the only team who can realistically fulfil the fixture in France, due to the quarantine restrictions. The quarantine rules affect all the other clubs differently to London, which is why there's one rule for them and another for the rest. I don't see what's wrong with that. And since they can fulfil the fixture, they should have done, regardless of the fact that they said they would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gooleboy Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 2 hours ago, Eddie said: I see this differently from a lot of you, why should London have to travel if nobody else has to? There shouldn’t be one rule for one and one for everyone else. Fair comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Prince Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 5 hours ago, fighting irish said: Yes it did. But of course, he let it go bankrupt didn't he. If he'd felt welcome, warmly embraced by the organisation he was funding (outrageously) to the tune of 15 million dollars, he might have kept his club afloat. Elstone's treatment of him and Toronto Wolfpack was laced with sneering contempt and a bitter distaste. It was no secret. We forget these people (billionaires/millionaires) are human beings with feelings. All I'm saying is we need to tread carefully here and stop treating them differently just because they've got a few quid. He went bankrupt because he was not paying creditors over a significant period. All down to him. He clearly did not have the money he claimed he had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Prince Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 1 hour ago, Angelic Cynic said: The club has no sympathy from me - particularly as it appears,like many others,to treat genuine rugby league followers with total disdain. I'm guessing the head coach and players were well prepped for the game https://www.totalrl.com/ward-happy-for-broncos-to-play-in-france/ Many clubs have played 'home ' games away, and managed without everything being on a level playing field. There is nothing about the entire sport of rugby league,being on a level playing field. The two French clubs,in this ' professional ' sport,seem to have had the filthiest end of the stick. So why cannot the other clubs play as well? The issue of full time part time is a total red herring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PECETTO Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 9 minutes ago, Human Punk said: Have I got this entirely wrong, or is it not that the Broncos full time status makes them the only team who can realistically fulfil the fixture in France, due to the quarantine restrictions. The quarantine rules affect all the other clubs differently to London, which is why there's one rule for them and another for the rest. I don't see what's wrong with that. And since they can fulfil the fixture, they should have done, regardless of the fact that they said they would. 2 minutes ago, Gooleboy said: Fair comment. Who says nobody else will do ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gooleboy Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 2 minutes ago, PECETTO said: Wouldn't it have been a fairer solution to postpone the London game and see what the situation is later in the season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fighting irish Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 6 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said: He went bankrupt because he was not paying creditors over a significant period. All down to him. He clearly did not have the money he claimed he had. Did he go bankrupt? Your original posting said the club (Toronto) went bankrupt. Which is it? You don't know do you? He may have decided not to pay even if he had billions in the bank. It could have been his personal decision to reduce (or cease) funding and allow the club to sink or swim on its own merits. What I'm saying is, if we are going to treat huge benefactors of our game unfairly, just because their are rich, its likely to upset/provoke them so we need to tread carefully. I wish you'd stop pushing your agenda (by implicating me) and just answer the points I raised, fairly and openly. I''m happy to discuss these (or any other) issues with you if you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binosh Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 This is clearly Leigh’s fault somehow I just know It. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fighting irish Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 2 hours ago, Archie Gordon said: The club *did* concede the issue. They grumbled, moaned and objected but agreed to go until this week. If they'd refused to go back in March, they'd have been in a much stronger position. Who could have argued with them? So if they were always going to refuse, why wait until now when it looks opportunistic? My reading between the lines is that they want to focus on the Oldham game given that they are looking like a shambles. On the core issue of is this fair? Of course not. It's therefore wholly unclear why London changed its position from a grumbling acceptance - they were advertising the game on ouRLeague earlier this week! - to refusing to fulfil the fixture. I've no axe to grind here but it seems to me (as another poster mentioned) that if the majority voted for this policy, it's a clear example of a democracy overstepping its role. Just because a majority voted for it, doesn't make it right. It's government on the basis of ''I've got a bigger gang than you'' so anything goes. Is it true that the majority of part time teams voted that the full time team has to travel? Ha ha! No wonder London grumbled about it. Where were our moral guardians (the RFL) in all this? They may have thought that COVID would be cleared up by now and everyone would have to travel so they wouldn't be disadvantaged. Then as time passed it's become more apparent (to Bronco's) the extent to which they've been shafted. Anyway in a sport short of millionaire backers, I think we ought to make sure we treat them fairly. Even if the majority of poorer clubs voted for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.