Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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 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

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.

Edited by Blind side johnny
  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

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

Link to post
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 post
Share on other sites
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. 

Edited by fighting irish
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 👍🏼 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 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
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 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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.

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

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 post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

 

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Edited by Rupert Prince
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 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...