Re: TM Speaks out over 40k fine : Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:40 pm
Gurus_Beard wrote:
Yes and he hasn't.
There's never been any supporting evidence to sustain that view, if that was his angle.
They will only "kick a club out" if they fail to meet the very clear criteria that they are both aware of as a member club and have agreed to abide to.
Then it's a foundationaless, futile offering.
Elements of truth but similarly but that they are effectively setting a precedent in in response shouldn't preclude that very response being effective and acknowledging. I also made it clear the fine was originally harsh.
Agreed. Wasn't my contention.
That's my very point.
As I've stated, quite what the club were supposed to do at the time to negate the incident is a mystery only the RFL solve. The key point remains the subsequent reaction to the incident and the fine and the "what me guv" answer. Crisis media work isn't difficult, it just takes a little clarity of thought.
The fact also remains that the RFL's fine was largely based on who funds them. Again, nobody seems to grasp this and instead plays the siege mentality sketch when this is actually far from the case.
There's never been any supporting evidence to sustain that view, if that was his angle.
They will only "kick a club out" if they fail to meet the very clear criteria that they are both aware of as a member club and have agreed to abide to.
Then it's a foundationaless, futile offering.
Elements of truth but similarly but that they are effectively setting a precedent in in response shouldn't preclude that very response being effective and acknowledging. I also made it clear the fine was originally harsh.
Agreed. Wasn't my contention.
That's my very point.
As I've stated, quite what the club were supposed to do at the time to negate the incident is a mystery only the RFL solve. The key point remains the subsequent reaction to the incident and the fine and the "what me guv" answer. Crisis media work isn't difficult, it just takes a little clarity of thought.
The fact also remains that the RFL's fine was largely based on who funds them. Again, nobody seems to grasp this and instead plays the siege mentality sketch when this is actually far from the case.
The club have indicated that they are doing all they can, they have banned people for crimes they previously believed weren't required to be dealt with by banning, but the severity of the RFL's fine has obviously given them the message that this is a bannable offence. The club do the same as everyone else with regards crowd control, so it is undoubtedly unfair for the RFL to pick out Cas. This was what TM was saying in his comments.
As for the 'hidden agenda' part. It's his opinion, and if the media want to take that as newsworthy that's not his problem. He says what he thinks, if you or anyone else disagree that's your opinion. I personally believe there's an element of truth in it - for the reasons given. The RFL have already stated two things - that one Championship club will be promoted and that SL will remain at 14 teams. That means that either they're lying, or they have to come up with reasons to kick a current SL club out. The three main clubs scoring lowest on the criteria are Cas, Wakey and Salford, so the RFL have to make a choice between the three. Stadiums would make the choice easier if some had them and others didn't, but with all three teams looking unlikely to have a new stadium to offer in time, the RFL have to find other ways to separate them. If a heavy fine for a commonplace crime for one club sets them apart from other clubs in the eyes of a barely interested media, that's pretty convenient.
I haven't read your other postings as I'm not fussed with wasting my time over futile bickering, but what do you suggest Cas should have done since they were issued with their fine? They have said that they did all they believed they could at the time, admitted that the chants went on, and have started dishing out punishments to the fans they have identified as chanting the offending comments. Personally, I'm not sure what else they should acknowledge, other than the work they continue to do to make Wheldon Road a family friendly ground.
