Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

They could have gone but wouldn't have been able to play TO. The RFL had said games in France weren't going ahead for PT clubs so they would not have supplied match officials and any game would have been unauthorised leading to possible sanctions against the clubs involved.

That's different to what I read at the time - which was about how clubs were not required to go unless they were full time.

I can't remember seeing anything that said the matches wouldn't be sanctioned, and I can't see anything now via a (admittedly quick) google.

  • 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


5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

That's different to what I read at the time - which was about how clubs were not required to go unless they were full time.

I can't remember seeing anything that said the matches wouldn't be sanctioned, and I can't see anything now via a (admittedly quick) google.

That means Toulouse’s home fixtures against Featherstone Rovers and Widnes Vikings, scheduled for May 1 and 8 respectively, will be postponed 

That looks like effectively not sanctioned to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

That means Toulouse’s home fixtures against Featherstone Rovers and Widnes Vikings, scheduled for May 1 and 8 respectively, will be postponed 

That looks like effectively not sanctioned to me

There's literally nothing there about not sanctioning.

  • Like 3

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

32 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

They possibly could have gone although probably not as the Governing body weren't authorising the games. The RFL had said games in France weren't going ahead for PT clubs so they would not have supplied match officials and any game would have probably led to sanctions against the clubs involved.

What you've just typed there are blatant lies.

Part time teams could have travelled and played in France if they were able to and wanted to and on the flipside of that didn't have to travel to play in France. Either choice taken would not have resulted in sanctions or the club being penalised. 

Where did you get this information from?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

That's different to what I read at the time - which was about how clubs were not required to go unless they were full time.

I can't remember seeing anything that said the matches wouldn't be sanctioned, and I can't see anything now via a (admittedly quick) google.

I cant be ar sed spending time looking just to prove an irrelevant point. As far as I recall, the game was postponed by the RFL therefore couldn't have gone. The decision was taken out of either clubs hands. But it matters not one jot.

The last sentence of your earlier post is correct. Fev will be going to toulouse on Sunday. Job's sorted. Roll on Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

They possibly could have gone although probably not as the Governing body weren't authorising the games. The RFL had said games in France weren't going ahead for PT clubs so they would not have supplied match officials and any game would have probably led to sanctions against the clubs involved.

Why are you perpetuating these untruths?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

I cant be ar sed spending time looking just to prove an irrelevant point. As far as I recall, the game was postponed by the RFL therefore couldn't have gone. The decision was taken out of either clubs hands. But it matters not one jot.

The last sentence of your earlier post is correct. Fev will be going to toulouse on Sunday. Job's sorted. Roll on Sunday.

The clubs were more than likely on board with the decision, if not some would be their usual vocal selves at the point of the decision.  Complaints were only made months after once the season panned out the way it did

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

The clubs were more than likely on board with the decision, if not some would be their usual vocal selves at the point of the decision.  Complaints were only made months after once the season panned out the way it did

It matters not. Fev are playing there Sunday. It'll be reight

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Robin Evans said:

It matters not. Fev are playing there Sunday. It'll be reight

Are you mentally prepped for Fev losing and then the away final (and the game against TO) being blamed though? I think that is the real worry here!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Are you mentally prepped for Fev losing and then the away final (and the game against TO) being blamed though? I think that is the real worry here!

You say worry.

I say some of us just want to watch the world burn.

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

I'm sorry if this has been said in the previous 16 or so pages , but what a pompous and totally outrageous OP. We are Rugby League. The implication in the OP is that Featherstone will bring nothing to the table. I'm fuming. They will bring history, hard work and dedication. They will bring hope to the "little" teams. Featherstone have been knocking on the door for a decade. And though they may be viewed as an unfashionable small team from a small town  ,in my eyes and many others they are giants. As an Oldham fan I look at Fev and see what is achievable. Oldham has a population of nearly 200,000, bigger than all but a handful of superleague teams, so the original post is nonsense. Using the population criteria would mean we should be in superleague. Come on Fev do it for the sake of Rugby League. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Art of Hand and Foot said:

I'm sorry if this has been said in the previous 16 or so pages , but what a pompous and totally outrageous OP.

Yes, it has cropped up a few times.

  • Like 1

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Art of Hand and Foot said:

I'm sorry if this has been said in the previous 16 or so pages , but what a pompous and totally outrageous OP. We are Rugby League. The implication in the OP is that Featherstone will bring nothing to the table. I'm fuming. They will bring history, hard work and dedication. They will bring hope to the "little" teams. Featherstone have been knocking on the door for a decade. And though they may be viewed as an unfashionable small team from a small town  ,in my eyes and many others they are giants. As an Oldham fan I look at Fev and see what is achievable. Oldham has a population of nearly 200,000, bigger than all but a handful of superleague teams, so the original post is nonsense. Using the population criteria would mean we should be in superleague. Come on Fev do it for the sake of Rugby League. 

Good post.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

St Helens population 102,00 beat Catalans , Perpignan population120,000. Imagine if it had been Oldham , population 237,00 v Rochdale population  212,000. I mean what could they have brought to the table?Oldham, home of the Northern Union for the first 30 years. The place where the modern rules were formulated, where Joseph Platt , son of Oldham father of rugby league, got the King to back rugby league. And the writer of the original post has the cheek to use use another son of Oldham as his moniker. Give me a break. Come on Fev, make it a double.

Edited by The Art of Hand and Foot
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/10/2021 at 10:56, The Art of Hand and Foot said:

I'm sorry if this has been said in the previous 16 or so pages , but what a pompous and totally outrageous OP. We are Rugby League. The implication in the OP is that Featherstone will bring nothing to the table. I'm fuming. They will bring history, hard work and dedication. They will bring hope to the "little" teams. Featherstone have been knocking on the door for a decade. And though they may be viewed as an unfashionable small team from a small town  ,in my eyes and many others they are giants. As an Oldham fan I look at Fev and see what is achievable. Oldham has a population of nearly 200,000, bigger than all but a handful of superleague teams, so the original post is nonsense. Using the population criteria would mean we should be in superleague. Come on Fev do it for the sake of Rugby League. 

The same argument was made for Leigh, they brought nothing more to Super League than any other club. Toulouse truly could bring something new to Super League and make a real difference to Rugby League. Come on Toulouse, do it for the sake of Rugby League.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

The same argument was made for Leigh, they brought nothing more to Super League than any other club. Toulouse truly could bring something new to Super League and make a real difference to Rugby League. Come on Toulouse, do it for the sake of Rugby League.

Would you mind quantifying what they’ll bring to the table?

Is it increased attendances? Will they enable France to become credible opponents for England? Will Sky see more value in the game? Will they bring a French TV deal?

I’m sure a man of your obvious intellect has thoroughly researched this matter and has stacks of supporting evidence.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, David Shepherd said:

Would you mind quantifying what they’ll bring to the table?

Is it increased attendances? Will they enable France to become credible opponents for England? Will Sky see more value in the game? Will they bring a French TV deal?

I’m sure a man of your obvious intellect has thoroughly researched this matter and has stacks of supporting evidence.

You seem to know so much about toulouse… do you live there ?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

The same argument was made for Leigh, they brought nothing more to Super League than any other club. Toulouse truly could bring something new to Super League and make a real difference to Rugby League. Come on Toulouse, do it for the sake of Rugby League.

How many times have you been to watch them this season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/10/2021 at 19:56, The Art of Hand and Foot said:

I'm sorry if this has been said in the previous 16 or so pages , but what a pompous and totally outrageous OP. We are Rugby League. The implication in the OP is that Featherstone will bring nothing to the table. I'm fuming. They will bring history, hard work and dedication. They will bring hope to the "little" teams. Featherstone have been knocking on the door for a decade. And though they may be viewed as an unfashionable small team from a small town  ,in my eyes and many others they are giants. As an Oldham fan I look at Fev and see what is achievable. Oldham has a population of nearly 200,000, bigger than all but a handful of superleague teams, so the original post is nonsense. Using the population criteria would mean we should be in superleague. Come on Fev do it for the sake of Rugby League. 

Oldham should be in SL. So too Bradford and London. 

The fact that the game is structured in such a way that Featherstone have a chance at being in the top flight is a massive problem. There are already small town teams in Super League. Nothing is stopping you from supporting them. 

The game is a business. Without a market the business dies. It's simple stuff.

  • Like 3

new rise.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pulga said:

The fact that the game is structured in such a way that Featherstone have a chance at being in the top flight is a massive problem.

That's certainly a viewpoint. I disagree.

It represents the very essence of why Rugby League exists in the first place. 

I'm not from Featherstone, I've never lived there. But they became my team precisely because they were plucky underdogs mixing it with the big boys in the top flight. Within my lifetime (and I'm not really that old) they have won the challenge cup and the equivalent of the super league title.

The fact that this is possible is why I'm a Rugby League fan.

Yes sport is a business, but sport will quickly die without there being an emotional connection for the paying customer.

Edited by David Shepherd
  • Like 3
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...