Re: Luke Walsh : Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:05 am  

saint at wire wrote:

Fully agree with this.

We should have appealed and assumed the 2 players were not playing. KC didn't need to go with them.

it looks now as if we were spitting the dummy out.

The chaos spilled over to the game against the goons. they were pretty ordinary and we were completely p$$s poor. We looked like the team from 2-3 months ago; confidence shot, no clue in attack, straight down the middle, no offloads etc etc.
we deserved to get soundly beaten and I can't pick out individuals as we were c$ap throughout the team.

I shudder to think about what will happen to us against hull. I put this partially down to throwing our toys out of the pram by not appealing.

The players finished training at around 12 noon on Thursday so they could have gone to Leeds for an appeal if desired. I'm not even sure if the players have to be there, so Mike Rush could have attended, as he did on Wednesday, or Saints could have requested a video call as Catalan do.

Basically it's more McManus smoke and mirrors, like his financial statements over the last two years.

Re: Luke Walsh : Sun Aug 21, 2016 10:18 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

The players finished training at around 12 noon on Thursday so they could have gone to Leeds for an appeal if desired. I'm not even sure if the players have to be there, so Mike Rush could have attended, as he did on Wednesday, or Saints could have requested a video call as Catalan do.

Basically it's more McManus smoke and mirrors, like his financial statements over the last two years.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make Brian?

All I said was we should have appealed but decided not to follow it through and then put out an angry statement in what looks like a fit of pique.
Both were really bad decisions in my view.

What this has got to do smoke and mirrors is beyond my comprehension - they were just bad decisions - end of.

With regards to McManus's financial statements, if you want to get into a discussion about how a lot worse wigan's financial situation is than St Helen's then please let me know - I have both sets of accounts and I am a banker (spelled with a B and not a W).
Just as an opener; guess which club is which? - one has very large net assets and is not reliant on the directors' support and the other is insolvent and relies on a certain Mr Ian Lenagan of Oxfordshire to keep lending it money to stay afloat.
Guess also which club laughingly still treats player's contracts as "assets" ?

I'm sure you know the answers to these questions and more.

Re: Luke Walsh : Mon Aug 22, 2016 7:54 am  

saint at wire wrote:

Just as an opener; guess which club is which? - one has very large net assets and is not reliant on the directors' support and the other is insolvent and relies on a certain Mr Ian Lenagan of Oxfordshire to keep lending it money to stay afloat.
Guess also which club laughingly still treats player's contracts as "assets" ?

I'm sure you know the answers to these questions and more.

I thought one had a big debt paying interest to a Hong Kong resident but whose company is registered offshore? while one is UK based and pays UK taxes. I'm not a banker with capital B, but just media with M lol spent a lot of time on sports finance. I do agree an asset is something a lot of major sports do not have these days.

Re: Luke Walsh : Mon Aug 22, 2016 6:08 pm  

I wonder if McManus has cited Catalans Taylor to the disciplinary for a potential eye gouge on Lomax, surely this should have been picked up last week and hence if charged shouldn't have played against Hull.

Re: Luke Walsh : Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:53 am  

Interesting McManus calls for the disciplinary to be more open, then last week a colleague Aaron who writes for the Guardian, & Rugby League World was granted permission to be present at the disciplinary meeting, all clubs involved were informed and asked if the objected, only one did Saints, should be an interesting article in this month's RL World.

Re: Luke Walsh : Tue Aug 23, 2016 4:22 pm  

jaybs wrote:

Interesting McManus calls for the disciplinary to be more open, then last week a colleague Aaron who writes for the Guardian, & Rugby League World was granted permission to be present at the disciplinary meeting, all clubs involved were informed and asked if the objected, only one did Saints, should be an interesting article in this month's RL World.

I should imagine McManus will see that an insult of the RFL disciplinary by passing the problem and creating "all is well" through media frontage. The latter part of his statement does has valid points and needs to be addressed, Quote:

" The problem is accentuated by a dysfunctional and erratic disciplinary system. I have made too many representations to this effect to the governing body but to absolutely no avail."

I seem to remember similar words said via Ian Millward asking for clarity, now that was over 10 years ago and nothing has changed to indicate improvement in transparency and consistency.

Re: Luke Walsh : Sat Aug 27, 2016 3:41 pm  

I guess gidley will be getting a 3 match ban for that blatent shoulder charge with secondary contact.

Re: Luke Walsh : Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:12 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

I guess gidley will be getting a 3 match ban for that blatent shoulder charge with secondary contact.

Re: Luke Walsh : Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:11 am  

Judder Man wrote:

I should imagine McManus will see that an insult of the RFL disciplinary by passing the problem and creating "all is well" through media frontage.

Don't disagree! my point was when you stand firm, when the RFL allow someone highly regarded from the media to see how the disciplinary works, only one club objects that they do not want him present? that is not being open.

For far too long our game thrives from Red Hall that all is fine & we are the greatest game, I have been accused so many times about my views on Nigel Wood, I'm not really sure what he does, and his club record before joining the RFL was not that good. It saddened me to see the empty seats at Wembley yesterday, back to the 61 final and I was then just a kid in the crowd, 66, 72 etc it was difficult to get tickets, but now we can't sell out Wembley for two top clubs? but RU can get as many if not more for a club game there?

Re: Luke Walsh : Sun Aug 28, 2016 10:49 am  

[quote="jaybs"]Don't disagree! my point was when you stand firm, when the RFL allow someone highly regarded from the media to see how the disciplinary works, only one club objects that they do not want him present? that is not being open.

/quote]


I should imagine McManus would see introducing the media to the disciplinary as a Visage that everything is OK and fair when the majority of clubs know that it is not. McManus would much prefer a consultant independent advisory to access the working practices and procedures of the disciplinary panel to openly acknowledge there findings be it for better or worse, pre organised media invitation does nothing but promote possible propaganda to paper over the cracks.