Re: This weeks RL Express : Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:39 pm  

Gronk! wrote: Not to be outdone in the pathetic last ditch attempts, James Elston has now chimed in with a massive dose of inferiority complex making not only himself, but the club look desperate and deluded: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... _1_3591561 What was he expected to say actually ?

Gronk! wrote: Not to be outdone in the pathetic last ditch attempts, James Elston has now chimed in with a massive dose of inferiority complex making not only himself, but the club look desperate and deluded: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... _1_3591561 What was he expected to say actually ?

Re: This weeks RL Express : Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:55 pm  

Dead Man Walking wrote:

What was he expected to say actually ?

According to some Wakefield are supposed to go down meekly without a fight. Didnt Cas have a article in the Evening post highlighting the postives about their bid? Why cant Wakey do the same?

Re: This weeks RL Express : Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:57 pm  

Richard1 wrote:

According to some Wakefield are supposed to go down meekily without a fight. Didnt Cas have a article in the Evening post highlighting the postives about their bid? Why cant Wakey do the same?

I have no clue about if Cas had a piece in the Evening Post as I don't read it.

Re: This weeks RL Express : Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:01 pm  

Dead Man Walking wrote:

I have no clue about if Cas had a piece in the Evening Post as I don't read it.

Im sure i saw one somewhere with RW highlighting positives about your bid, and i dont blame him. He has every right to. Wakey do it and we are wrong, desperate and all sorts!!

Re: This weeks RL Express : Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:17 pm  

Dead Man Walking wrote:

What was he expected to say actually ?

Well he didn't have to make that not so sly dig at Cas did he?

Re: This weeks RL Express : Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:28 pm  

Gronk! wrote:

Well he didn't have to make that not so sly dig at Cas did he?

Probably not but in doing that he shows he's pretty worried about the 26th.

Re: This weeks RL Express : Tue Jul 19, 2011 6:59 pm  

I've read the article and don't consider it of great concern as a Cas fan. Clearly it favours Wakey's position but the author makes no bones about that. Makes some very valid points about the negative side of franchising IMO.

Lets be honest, most of us Cas fans are happy with franchising because we've benefitted from it, had we not done so we'd have the same opinion of it as most Wakey fans.

I'm more concerned about the massively biased match report of our game against Crusaders. The reporter describes 3 Crusaders 'tries' that were disallowed in the 1st half in a manner that suggests they were very unlucky not to have all 3 given when infact each decision to disallow the try was correct. The only remotely dubious video ref decision was the 1 to award Parker the winning try at the end and that was 50/50 call that went in the favour of the attacking side. Having said that maybe I watched the game through black & amber tinted specs cos Robbie Paul described Crusaders as 'dominating' the game on the Superleague show.

Its funny but if it had been Saints that won the game at the death like we did - as they've done many a time on SKY - everyone would be eulogising about how you can 'never write saints off' but cos it was little ole Cas it was unlucky Crusaders who you had to feel sorry for! Why? They're a completely manufactured side that a minority of fans are interested in who are guaranteed another 3 years in Superleague at the expense of a heartland club who are genuinely the fabric of their community....

Re: This weeks RL Express : Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:42 pm  

Agree about the first bit fella. Cant put down a team for trying to put their best foot forward (apart from it being a weak step at the mo unfortunately). As for the Cru and London team. Less said. Cas and Wakey have sometimes a bitter rivalry. But would you rather have two cas v wakey games per year or play cru/quins twice per year each?

Re: This weeks RL Express : Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:12 pm  

Richard1 wrote:

But would you rather have two cas v wakey games per year or play cru/quins twice per year each?

I think every Cas & Wakey fan knows the answer to that.

You'll do well to find a thread with match discussion/banter between fans of both clubs but, you'll find hundreds with talk of franchises, stadiums, attendances and just general crap trying to belittle each others clubs. I'm not perfect i've been drawn in to tit-for-tat crap too.

I'm old enough to remember when the only debate to be had was about what happened on sunday afternoon. I think them days have gone.

Sad state of affairs really.

Re: This weeks RL Express : Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:45 am  

Cecil B wrote:

I've read the article and don't consider it of great concern as a Cas fan. Clearly it favours Wakey's position but the author makes no bones about that. Makes some very valid points about the negative side of franchising IMO.

Lets be honest, most of us Cas fans are happy with franchising because we've benefitted from it, had we not done so we'd have the same opinion of it as most Wakey fans.

A very sensible viewpoint

Cecil B wrote:

I'm more concerned about the massively biased match report of our game against Crusaders. The reporter describes 3 Crusaders 'tries' that were disallowed in the 1st half in a manner that suggests they were very unlucky not to have all 3 given when infact each decision to disallow the try was correct. The only remotely dubious video ref decision was the 1 to award Parker the winning try at the end and that was 50/50 call that went in the favour of the attacking side. Having said that maybe I watched the game through black & amber tinted specs cos Robbie Paul described Crusaders as 'dominating' the game on the Superleague show.

The ruling of tries as far as I know is, is there any reason why I should not give this try, well clearly there was as the video ref on three occasions denied them, also using the same reference the video ref could find no reason to disallow Parker's try everything done fair and squarely even if it did not suit the obviously biased chuckle bros'

Cecil B wrote:

Its funny but if it had been Saints that won the game at the death like we did - as they've done many a time on SKY - everyone would be eulogising about how you can 'never write saints off' but cos it was little ole Cas it was unlucky Crusaders who you had to feel sorry for! Why? They're a completely manufactured side that a minority of fans are interested in who are guaranteed another 3 years in Superleague at the expense of a heartland club who are genuinely the fabric of their community....

I would not put too much money on that happening if I was you.