Re: kits : Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:57 pm  

Ceebeejames wrote:

And if you want to get at the truth rather than bask in conspiracy theory ask your club whether they received the kit directive sent out by the operations department in mid May. And there you will see that the information that has now been posted is correct: Giants alternate and Tigers principal.

Unless Cas have dodgy internet connections then the club got the directive and someone failed to read it and THEN your kit people failed to take 2 kits to games as required. The RFL cock up was a failure to update their own systems.

Do you have evidence that Castleford received and acknowledged that email? And that the RFL checked to ensure the information had got through?

Thought not.

Re: kits : Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:59 pm  

marshman wrote:

I can confirm that the RFL spreadsheet had Hudds in home and Cas in away strip last night after the game had finished. I can also confirm the the RFL have since changed this to Hudds away kit, Cas home kit today. This is what we are dealing with, the governing body running our sport. What a set of juankers!

Edit- And thanks to Firefox saving my browsing history I still have the old file just to prove I didn't read it wrong yesterday.

I don't think this is a sport any more. In fact it's reminding me a lot of WWE these days. I wonder who's booked to win our game down t'lane next week...

Re: kits : Mon Jun 06, 2011 2:03 pm  

WireWire wrote:

If you look in the operation rules, rule B 1.27 states:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of B1.24, where the Colours of the visiting Club clash with that
of the home Club (and the Match Commissioner shall be the final arbiter of this), the visiting
Club must change into such alternative strip or parts of strip as the Match Commissioner may
direct. To ensure that this Rule can be complied with the visiting Club must bring two different
sets of strip to the Match."

HTH

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!!!

Re: kits : Mon Jun 06, 2011 2:05 pm  

bootie wrote:

And if you owned your ground you wouldn't have been told to vacate by your football masters. Wouldn't have been a mix up then, but hey ho shiny stadiums and all. Doesn't matter if you own them maybe that should come up in the sl licenses own your ground get a bonus point.

I assume your post is a send up - you can't really be that dumb?

First :At the moment the galpharm is basically 60% owned by davy and 40% owned by the council. In time davy will sell 40% to Town. Even when that happens the enduring contract created when the stadium was built will protect all 3 parties. The contract runs for over100 years

Second:the new playing surface includes 'artificial grass' plus real grass grown from seeds. These seeds need maximum sunlight to grow best and that occurs in.....June and July so sadly your childlike theory is nonsense.

Third: If the game was played at the Galpharm the Giants would still have requested the alternate kit - this being part of an agreement to help out Cas back in February! the difference being that if Cas had turned up at the galpharm with the wrong kit they could not have borrowed Giants shirts for the game.

other than those glaring inaccuracies your post is fine.

Re: kits : Mon Jun 06, 2011 2:11 pm  

Bonzo wrote:

Do you have evidence that Castleford received and acknowledged that email? And that the RFL checked to ensure the information had got through?

Thought not.

You are getting desperate. Ask Cas if they got the directive in mid may. The Giants CEO has spelt it out in detail. if Thewlis is wrong why doesn't Wright put the Cas case. his silence is deafening.


And if they got no emails why did Cas fail to take 2 kits as the rules require.

Re: kits : Mon Jun 06, 2011 2:44 pm  

Ceebeejames wrote:

You are getting desperate. Ask Cas if they got the directive in mid may. The Giants CEO has spelt it out in detail. if Thewlis is wrong why doesn't Wright put the Cas case. his silence is deafening.


And if they got no emails why did Cas fail to take 2 kits as the rules require.

I'm not desperate in the slightest, but as you profess to be all seeing and all knowing perhaps you can answer those questions and clear things up. My point however still stands and was merely to highlight the fact that there may have been an error in communication somewhere. It's apparent that the clubs and the match officials haven't communicated with eachother prior to the match which demonstrates a complete lack of professionalism in all cases.

What doesn't make sense to me is why both teams only had one kit - Cas didn't have both (as the rules require) but neither did Huddersfield, despite being at 'home'. One has to assume that a home team will have access to both kits and therefore be easily able to change should a situation like this arise - clearly had the game been played at the Galpharm this would've been the case.

Also, what bearing does the game at Cas have on this one? The kits for that game were switched but that doesn't automatically mean that the original directives are switched for the reverse fixture too. Communication once again - it's fallen apart quite alarmingly somewhere.

Re: kits : Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:10 pm  

Bonzo wrote:

I'm not desperate in the slightest, but as you profess to be all seeing and all knowing

[Where have i professed this, do tell]


perhaps you can answer those questions and clear things up. My point however still stands and was merely to highlight the fact that there may have been an error in communication somewhere. It's apparent that the clubs and the match officials haven't communicated with eachother prior to the match which demonstrates a complete lack of professionalism in all cases.

[Where is the lack of professionalism by the Giants? They help out Cas in Feb. Agree a reciprocal deal for the return game - if you do not want to believe this...don't. The Giants get the mid may directive that clearly states the alternate kit and have it at the game. If Cas did not get the directive then Wright can go public and simply explain why they did not take 2 kits as required.]


What doesn't make sense to me is why both teams only had one kit - Cas didn't have both (as the rules require) but neither did Huddersfield, despite being at 'home'. One has to assume that a home team will have access to both kits and therefore be easily able to change should a situation like this arise - clearly had the game been played at the Galpharm this would've been the case.
[Giants did not need 2 kits. they knew the kit they were wearing and the RFL confirmed this in the directive + Bentham did also. Why shoud anyone else have to jump through hoops because Cas fully or partially cocked up?]

Also, what bearing does the game at Cas have on this one? The kits for that game were switched but that doesn't automatically mean that the original directives are switched for the reverse fixture too. Communication once again - it's fallen apart quite alarmingly somewhere.

[First the switch in Feb shows that alternate kits may be worn at home. Second it links with the explanation that at the return game there was an agreement to reciprocate - as i say if you want to deny this, go ahead. third the problem with comunication is either between the RFL and Cas or within cas. the Giants were crystal clear on the issue.]

[Wildthing]

Re: kits : Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:16 pm  

This thread really does make me glad Ceebeejames is banned from the Wakey site.

Re: kits : Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:26 pm  

Ceebeejames wrote:

Lots of words, little substance

I'd be interested to see evidence of such reciprocal deals after the February game and confirmation that Cas were in receipt of the amended kit directives. You're clearly happy to come on here and slate Cas when you clearly aren't aware of all the facts - none of us are actually. In fact, a number of the Cas players said on Twitter that we were supposed to be wearing white, which would seem to contradict your argument.

You profess to be all seeing and all knowing through the arrogant manner in which you construct your posts, and the fact that you can only see that Huddersfield can do no wrong.

Arrogance is something I hadn't ever associated with Huddersfield fans until last night when you all booed a Cas player as he was stretchered off the pitch injured. I hope you're all pleased with yourselves and your sportsmanship.

Re: kits : Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:37 pm  

Bonzo wrote:

I'd be interested to see evidence of such reciprocal deals after the February game and confirmation that Cas were in receipt of the amended kit directives. You're clearly happy to come on here and slate Cas when you clearly aren't aware of all the facts - none of us are actually.

[I have not slated Cas. Think it is a smallish problem. Just is not the Giants' fault]

In fact, a number of the Cas players said on Twitter that we were supposed to be wearing white, which would seem to contradict your argument.

[So some Cas players were misinfomed as well as your kit man....wow!]

You profess to be all seeing and all knowing through the arrogant manner in which you construct your posts, and the fact that you can only see that Huddersfield can do no wrong.

[ I put my case as strong as i can, that is not professing to be all seeing. Try and work out the difference Hudds can do wrong. Just not in this case. Try not to generalise.]

Arrogance is something I hadn't ever associated with Huddersfield fans until last night when you all booed a Cas player as he was stretchered off the pitch injured. I hope you're all pleased with yourselves and your sportsmanship.

[There you go generalising again....'all booed' Not true. i jeered when he tried to stick his knee into Eorl but I stood and clapped the lad off. His brother is at the Giants. I did boo when Owen threw himself on the floor like he had been shot when he ran into the back of Lawrence. That certainly was poor sportsmanship.]