Challenge Cup 2025

[Barley Mow]

20 minutes ago, Impartial Observer said:

I thought Hunslet were the GF winners and Siddal won the league

Hunslet ARLFC were winners of the National Conference League, Premier division (because they won the Grand Final).

Siddal finished top of the table in the regular season.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

42 minutes ago, Impartial Observer said:

I thought Hunslet were the GF winners and Siddal won the league

Sure, but that's like saying in SL the team who won league leaders shield won the league...doesn't really mean much.

20 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Hunslet ARLFC were winners of the National Conference League, Premier division (because they won the Grand Final).

Siddal finished top of the table in the regular season.

Correct 

Should clarify, it was only meant tongue in cheek replying to Dunbar's post - Siddal are a great side and better than us over the course of the season it's fair to say. 

 

...but we're still the champs 

Edited January 6 by hunsletgreenandgold

[Impartial Observer]

1 hour ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Sure, but that's like saying in SL the team who won league leaders shield won the league...doesn't really mean much.

 

You mean that SL teams do not really value that lovely hub cap 

[Griff]

41 minutes ago, Impartial Observer said:

You mean that SL teams do not really value that lovely hub cap 

It's the fans who don't value the achievement.

At the same time, they'll claim (especially in Featherstone) that the team that finishes top of the Championship table should get promoted.

The irony meter is off the scale.

[Impartial Observer]

Just seen Cutsyke taking wath brows place

[Archie Gordon]

The Sportsman is covering the Thatto Heath - Orrell St James game.

[Barley Mow]

Wath Brow's statement below. Does this suggest they aren't aware that amateur clubs entering the CC are permitted contact training before February, as others posted yesterday?

[RP London]

30 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Wath Brow's statement below. Does this suggest they aren't aware that amateur clubs entering the CC are permitted contact training before February, as others posted yesterday?

I may be wrong, but personified isn't the right word to be use at the start! why not just say increased?!? 

As has been stated before, they knew all this before entering. Also if the RFL said it is ok to contact train then the RFLs "Mandate" is not a reason as they actually say its ok (unless Wath Brow have decided they would prefer not to start so early, which is ok but that's on them not the RFL, so blaming the RFL is incorrect). In any statement I don't think using CAPS is a particularly good idea either. Generally the whole thing doesn't look particularly great IMHO.

[RigbyLuger]

Blame everyone else. Ban them from the competition for five years.

[Eddie]

8 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Blame everyone else. Ban them from the competition for five years.

For being concerned about their player welfare? 

[wilsontown]

Amateurish statement, but then they are an amateur club so perhaps to be expected. What a mess, though.

[RigbyLuger]

22 minutes ago, Eddie said:

For being concerned about their player welfare? 

That's what the statement says, but others have contradicted it. If they want to play in it, then they can take the measures to do so, as, I'm assuming here, every other club involved has. The line about finance sticks out.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

'These cup games no longer present the financial rewards that were on offer years ago and in reality often cost amateur clubs' 

That's the long and short of it and is a fair comment - all the rest is waffle. I can't get on board with the idea they didn't know they were allowed to do contact training, even if the coaches took the RFL guidance literally, the players definitely speak cross-club so would've been known.

Almost certainly they've had poor player numbers back before the new year and don't fancy travelling 3+ hours on a coach to Bradford, in early January, against a very tough West Bowling side, who definitely will have had numbers training for at least a month. In that sense pulling out for player welfare probably is fair, because putting together a makeshift team just to fulfil a fixture isn't safe at this level. 

[The Blues Ox]

Seems a long winded way of saying they could not raise a team dressed up as player welfare issues that none of the other amateur teams playing in this round have raised concerns about. Makes Wath Brow look a little...ahem....amateur.

[gingerjon]

We know, from the numbers that dribbled out last year, that there is basically zero financial incentive for the Challenge Cup participants currently.

I think Wath Brow have done things poorly here but can’t blame them too much.

[JohnM]

As a "stream of conciousness" piece, the statement could win the Franz Kafka Prize. 

Unfortunately, it confuses this reader (at least) looking to identify, understand and prioritise the real issues behind the decision.

Edited January 7 by JohnM

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, JohnM said:

As a "stream of conciousness" piece, the statement could win the Franz Kafka Prize. 

Unfortunately, it confuses this reader (at least) looking to identify, understand and prioritise the real issues behind the decision.

all they had to do was chuck it into chat gpt and ask it to be rewritten as a professional statement. 

[Archie Gordon]

"We're really sorry - it was our mistake to accept the invite and we accept the consequences."

All else is a distraction.

[Griff]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

I may be wrong, but personified isn't the right word to be use at the start! why not just say increased?!? 

I was going to say that.  It's absolutely the wrong word.

Magnified would be better.

Having said that, it doesn't affect the general thrust of the statement.

[RP London]

28 minutes ago, Griff said:

I was going to say that.  It's absolutely the wrong word.

Magnified would be better.

Having said that, it doesn't affect the general thrust of the statement.

Yes magnified would work too... 

it doesnt change the general thrust but its the sort of thing that gets it all off on the wrong foot, someone trying to sound clever but actually looking a bit silly. The rest then goes pretty much to form!

[Griff]

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

For being concerned about their player welfare? 

It's like all this information has only been available for the last few days.  It was always open to them to decline the invitation but they've waited until a couple of days before the game before they decide to withdraw.

There are too many amateur teams in the competition, imho.  We create problems for them by staging the fixtures so early, the fixtures aren't financially rewarding, they create little or no interest any more because they are so common.  In particular, I can't see the value of amateurs playing amateurs in Round 1.  Inviting half of them would be a first step towards financial reality.

[Just Browny]

Extremely generous to read that and think it relates to player welfare. 

They don't want to spend money participating and know that vaguely blaming the RFL is going to get a good hearing in rugby league circles. They haven't really committed to the training/player welfare argument as they know it is easily shot down by the fact they have been entitled to carry out full contact training.

[RigbyLuger]

1 minute ago, Just Browny said:

They don't want to spend money participating and know that vaguely blaming the RFL is going to get a good hearing in rugby league circles.

The headlines about it being a "major blow" and for a "concerning reason" show how poor journalism is as well for not even digging below the surface. The RFL should be having a word.

[Impartial Observer]

4 hours ago, Eddie said:

For being concerned about their player welfare? 

No for accepting an invite and then turning it down. For putting out misinformation.

 If they had turned it down to start with and said this is the reason then they could have had the morale high ground. Rumours circulate that training sessions last week were poorly attended last week hence their decision to pull out.

I understand that the first round losers get £500 and there is a grant for coach travel so I doubt if there is any actual cost for them at the end of the day. Does anyone know what the financial rewards were in the past they mention?

 

[Gav Wilson]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

all they had to do was chuck it into chat gpt and ask it to be rewritten as a professional statement. 

I'd rather read more amateurish rants than AI slop.