Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by redjonn
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

The RFL needs to re-think it's decision for three reasons: Firstly, it does discrimate against full-time clubs in the championship, if there is a requirement for then to go to France and not part

I've no issue with that..... if you want to comment on that feel.free on that thread. This thread is about London broncos owd cock

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Haha 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3

PACIFIQUE TREIZE: Join the team by registering as a fan today at pacifique13.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Sad 1

"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."

Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."

Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Sad 1

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 post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

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 post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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)

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Edited by Spidey
Link to post
Share on other sites
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"

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Spidey said:

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 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...