intersting statement from Matthew Shaw

[tms]

For all you naysayers who said FEV were scared to go to TO

 

[Cheadle Leyther]

7 hours ago, POR said:

For all you naysayers who said FEV were scared to go to TO

 

Don’t understand what the point is.

[Dave T]

Ignore. My mistake. 

[The Blues Ox]

30 minutes ago, Cheadle Leyther said:

Don’t understand what the point is.

I think by the looks of it the point is that Fev wanted to go over to France to play their game that got postponed earlier in the season which would still have given Fev a chance to top the league. It sounds like Toulouse refused to play the game.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I think by the looks of it the point is that Fev wanted to go over to France to play their game that got postponed earlier in the season which would still have given Fev a chance to top the league. It sounds like Toulouse refused to play the game.

Would that be the protocol? 

What were the rules around postponed games being rearranged? 

It's a weird tweet from Shaw in that he gives no detail of anything and it's hard to see what his claim is. 

 

[Dave T]

In fact looking at the fixtures, Toulouse have fixtures for the next two weekends already. 

[RigbyLuger]

Did someone from Fev want to get s message out and Shaw is their vessel?

[The Blues Ox]

Hard to say really but if I remember rightly the Fev game was one that was postponed where as the later ones were cancelled and the original plan was for them to play the game later in the season.

[Dave T]

There seems to be this claim that Toulouse haven't played the 70% doing the rounds, which I don't think is true. The RFL stated at the start that the postponed games in France wouldn't count so that teams wouldn't be unduly punished for pandemic reasons. 

So I think they have met the 70% requirement, I think it is harsh to criticise a club who have been fulfilling all their away games and not getting home games. 

[The Daddy]

30 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I think by the looks of it the point is that Fev wanted to go over to France to play their game that got postponed earlier in the season which would still have given Fev a chance to top the league. It sounds like Toulouse refused to play the game.

In a recent interview with John Davidson that is now on Patreon, the Featherstone chairman stated he did not want Featherstone to go France to play any play off games citing players not being vaxxed and having part time jobs as reasons, that contradicts whatever point Matthew Shaw is trying to say in his tweet

[Davo5]

Got to love another Fev conspiracy theory.

[Tommygilf]

Why did Fev not play them earlier in the season?

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

I think by the looks of it the point is that Fev wanted to go over to France to play their game that got postponed earlier in the season which would still have given Fev a chance to top the league. It sounds like Toulouse refused to play the game.

Do you have any evidence to this claim? 

[Tommygilf]

Irony of Fev complaining about a game they postponed (not Toulouse) because they are part timers not being rescheduled in time to be played is humorous. It also fundamentally underlines certain other "issues" with several championship clubs super league ambitions.

Bet they regret not taking the 5 days quarantine now though!

[Scubby]

1 hour ago, The Daddy said:

In a recent interview with John Davidson that is now on Patreon, the Featherstone chairman stated he did not want Featherstone to go France to play any play off games citing players not being vaxxed and having part time jobs as reasons, that contradicts whatever point Matthew Shaw is trying to say in his tweet

But that doesn't count as he actually said it against a random tweet from a journalist.

[Griff]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

There seems to be this claim that Toulouse haven't played the 70% doing the rounds, which I don't think is true.

It is true but it was agreed that they didn't have to.

What's not clear is whether Fev offered to fulfil the game at the time or whether they've suddenly become anxious to play the game after losing last month.  Bit churlish if the latter and I'm not surprised Toulouse declined.

Either way, Toulouse would need to lose another game for Fev to finish top, even if Fev won in Toulouse.  Might happen, might not.  Who have they got left to play ?

[wasginger]

Irrespective of what Mathew Shaw says. Fev first need to ensure they're in the Grand Final. Then go over to France and beat Toulouse. Job done and everybody left with egg on their faces.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Griff said:

It is true but it was agreed that they didn't have to.

What's not clear is whether Fev offered to fulfil the game at the time or whether they've suddenly become anxious to play the game after losing last month.  Bit churlish if the latter and I'm not surprised Toulouse declined.

Either way, Toulouse would need to lose another game for Fev to finish top, even if Fev won in Toulouse.  Might happen, might not.  Who have they got left to play ?

It's a false claim though isn't it, as the 70% rule isn't a thing when nobody will/can go to Toulouse. Toulouse have travelled everywhere. 

So people leading with the 70% point are stirring. 

[Dave T]

 

[Griff]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's a false claim though isn't it, as the 70% rule isn't a thing when nobody will/can go to Toulouse. Toulouse have travelled everywhere. 

So people leading with the 70% point are stirring. 

It's not false because they'll be two games short - 14 instead of 16.

But they are indeed stirring because they weren't required to play 70% so failing to do so is irrelevant.  It was agreed that they would have to play everyone at least once (hence the "home" games against Swinton and Widnes being fulfilled at Sale) and that part time teams wouldn't be required to go.   At the time, it wasn't known how long that would last.  Turns out it was the entire regular season.

[RigbyLuger]

22 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

Bit poor that. Especially when they have questions to answer about the employment of one of their staff.

Maybe Ben Blackmore could have used that draw when he was up before the disciplinary earlier this season too.

[Wakefield Ram]

It just confirms there actually is a global conspiracy against Featherstone.......

[Fevrover]

51 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Bit poor that. Especially when they have questions to answer about the employment of one of their staff.

Maybe Ben Blackmore could have used that draw when he was up before the disciplinary earlier this season too.

Ben Blackmore got punished and rightly so,so why bring it up again now ?

[Davo5]

1 hour ago, wasginger said:

Irrespective of what Mathew Shaw says. Fev first need to ensure they're in the Grand Final. Then go over to France and beat Toulouse. Job done and everybody left with egg on their faces.

Why exactly would everybody be left with egg on their faces,if it does happen Fev will have overcome a really good side on their own ground and so would deservedly be promoted.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

 

That's rich. When they were asked originally, in the fixture list, they pulled the "we're part time and can't afford the 5 day quarantine on return" excuse.

As it stands now, any unvaccinated players will need to quarantine for 10 days in a hotel on return from France... what's the difference? Why can the part timers do that now when they couldn't do 5 days before? Are Fev only planning to take fully vaccinated players?

At the end of the regular season it will be clear that 1 team at the top of the table travelled abroad to play their main promotion rivals away from home in the League and one didn't.