Jump to content

Broncos forfeit Toulouse game


Recommended Posts


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. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

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.

Despite your antipathy to Hughes’ Broncos organisation (or lack of), surely you can see the inequity of the RFL only expecting one club in this league to travel to Toulouse? It’s an absolute nonsenseburger of Double Whopper proportions, come on 

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Despite your antipathy to Hughes’ Broncos organisation (or lack of), surely you can see the inequity of the RFL only expecting one club in this league to travel to Toulouse? It’s an absolute nonsenseburger of Double Whopper proportions, come on 

 

 

 

 

Toulouse are paying for it. The game is as safe as any other game to play. London are full time professionals so the bubble rules will make no difference to them.

Frankly, it’s embarrassing that the club have chosen to run and hide rather than make it about bonding in adversity.

Edited by gingerjon
  • Like 5
  • 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 comment
Share on other sites

The Widnes & Featherstone games have been postponed 

 

Does that mean that later in the season they could get rearranged if Toulouse don't play the 70% of games neeeded

 

It stinks really🤔

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, coolie said:

The Widnes & Featherstone games have been postponed 

 

Does that mean that later in the season they could get rearranged if Toulouse don't play the 70% of games neeeded

 

It stinks really🤔

Yes there are plans to play those games at some point later in the season. In the case of Widnes Toulouse will have to travel to England now due to Widnes playing in 1895 cup semi finals, this was covered before the season started:

https://widnesvikings.co.uk/vikings-game-with-toulouse-postponed/

edit. This also extends to Featherstone & Swinton come to think of it

Edited by Spidey
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Toulouse are paying for it. The game is as safe as any other game to play. London are full time professionals so the bubble rules will make no difference to them.

Frankly, it’s embarrassing that the club have chosen to run and hide rather than make it about bonding in adversity.

God you really have gone full “if Hughes does it it’s wrong” no matter what haven’t you? I still believe in one rule for all myself, whether I like ‘em or not 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/04/2021 at 22:09, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

God you really have gone full “if Hughes does it it’s wrong” no matter what haven’t you? I still believe in one rule for all myself, whether I like ‘em or not 

It's so reminiscent of the Toronto arguments.

The odds (financially) were stacked against them so unfairly it hardly surprising they got into difficulties.

I know that that's the basis on which they entered the competition but the lack of sympathy expressed by some posters reeked of envy. They didn't want to help them to succeed and prosper, they just wanted to be rid of them.

One of the major flaws in a pure democracy is that vicious majorities (can tend to) ride roughshod over minorities. In a free association (of course) minorities have rights and they and those rights, need to be protected from an envious majority (mob).

Otherwise, the majority can legally vote to send the minority to oblivion.

Not because they're incompetent, or immoral,  but just because they are good. 

Edited by fighting irish
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

It's so reminiscent of the Toronto arguments.

The odds (financially) were stacked against them so unfairly it hardly surprising they got into difficulties.

I know that that's the basis on which they entered the competition but the lack of sympathy expressed by some posters reeked of envy. They didn't want to help them to succeed and prosper, they just wanted to be rid of them.

One of the major flaws in a pure democracy is that vicious majorities (can tend to) ride roughshod over minorities. In a free association (of course) minorities have rights and they and those rights, need to be protected from an envious majority (mob).

Otherwise, the majority can legally vote to send the minority to oblivion.

Not because their incompetent, or immoral,  but just because they are good. 

So, in this situation, London are Toronto?

Or is it Toulouse, who, after all, are paying for the whole thing and still a full time professional rugby club won't securely travel to play them?

  • Like 2

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

9 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

God you really have gone full “if Hughes does it it’s wrong” no matter what haven’t you? I still believe in one rule for all myself, whether I like ‘em or not 

A few more signs of life from the Broncos as a functioning rugby club would be appreciated.

Playing rugby games could be one of those signs.

Avoiding them is usually not a healthy sign.

  • Like 2

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

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

So, in this situation, London are Toronto?

Or is it Toulouse, who, after all, are paying for the whole thing and still a full time professional rugby club won't securely travel to play them?

No Ging' I'm not saying that London and Toronto are equivalent.

My comment was about unfair treatment and also about the attitude of some (a lot of) posters towards that unfair treatment. Very few, see the unfairness as wrong.

In earlier posts, I made the point that a majority shouldn't have the power to impose a burden on a minority just because they are good.

I agree that avoiding playing the game, doesn't bode well for the sport but I commented earlier that it may be indicative of a change in David Hughes attitude, to the game, his club and more particularly to a cohort of clubs that would happily impose a burden of responsibility on him, that they don't feel obliged to share.

We need to tread carefully here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

In earlier posts, I made the point that a majority shouldn't have the power to impose a burden on a minority just because they are good.

Was the decision based on a vote of Championship clubs? Or an RFL decision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Despite your antipathy to Hughes’ Broncos organisation (or lack of), surely you can see the inequity of the RFL only expecting one club in this league to travel to Toulouse? It’s an absolute nonsenseburger of Double Whopper proportions, come on 

 

 

 

 

All the clubs are going to travel to toulouse at the end of quarantine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

Was the decision based on a vote of Championship clubs? Or an RFL decision?

I don't know mate. I was asking, rather than telling and then my head went into a spin, over what's fair and not. I would hate to lose London Broncos and/or David Hughes, to the game. In the same way, I wish David Argyle was still involved. 

Edited by fighting irish
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, fighting irish said:

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. 

I'll clarify, He or the club ended up in debt and did not pay it's creditors, and that, it transpired, had been going on for a long time.  Someone I believe has now taken them over, but for me the whole exercise has soured me for the concept.  Looking at how it was tried, I do not think a club(s) from the eastern American seaboard works as part of Super League.

Good luck to a Canadian League and or a North American league.  I hope they can find home grown players.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

I'll clarify, He or the club ended up in debt and did not pay it's creditors, and that, it transpired, had been going on for a long time.  Someone I believe has now taken them over, but for me the whole exercise has soured me for the concept.  Looking at how it was tried, I do not think a club(s) from the eastern American seaboard works as part of Super League.

Good luck to a Canadian League and or a North American league.  I hope they can find home grown players.

Well said. TWP's financial problems before they got into Super League were self iinflicted.

Those problems manifested themselves initially with TWP not playing several other clubs (>£100k unpaid in at least one case). So when other posters blame other clubs for TWP's exit from SL, it perhaps not surprising that the other clubs were unsympathetic when TWP ran into bigger problems last year which for once were not of their own making.

TWP could certainly teach Broncos a lot about marketing and communications though.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Archie Gordon said:

Was the decision based on a vote of Championship clubs? Or an RFL decision?

The "decision" wasn't about whether clubs would play Toulouse away or not. Despite the attempts of some on here to be utterly simplistic it was a complex proposal from the RFL about the whole structure of the Championship and C1 in 2021 that provided the possibility of a season of fixtures actually being run, together with a host of contingencies regarding the avoidance of excessive disruption to these schedules in the case of another Covid surge.

These proposals were drawn up and considered when the country was still in the throes of a major Covid wave with hundreds of people dying daily. The alternative to accepting these proposals, together with their idiosyncrasies could, in reality, have meant abandoning the 2021 season in total. This could well have resulted in some clubs closing, possibly for good. It would appear that some posters on here would regard this as a price worth paying.

At the time I certainly wasn't aware of London kicking up a major fuss about the arrangements. Nor do I recall them saying that they would refuse to travel to Toulouse under these circumstances or obligations. What has changed in the meantime?

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

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

55 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Wow, is that right?  Are the other championship clubs not in the official fixture list?

Do keep up RP. The fixture list for the Championship, as published weeks ago, does not cover each club playing each other one home and away. Every club loses four "fixtures" from what would have been a balanced programme under normal circumstances. That is why the league positions will be determined on the basis of the win percentage rather than points. Hence, two clubs didn't have an away fixture in Toulouse to begin with and two other clubs won't have a home fixture with them either.

  • Like 3

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

On 09/04/2021 at 08:59, 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 

Aren’t Toulouse being awarded the win to their percentage. If the rest of the teams refused to go/play them they’d walk the comp. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...