Re: The mad doctor : Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:59 pm  

vastman wrote:

Because the Heatherington's don't own either club outright do they ffs give the twaddle a rest - your SL dream is in tatters and no amount of spin can hide the corrupted state the sport is now in.

Another big city club with a rich owner AND its got your panties in a bunch? Great work Mr and Mrs Koucash!

Re: The mad doctor : Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:01 pm  

personally i love it, the clique that out numbers Koukash is now 1 less short. Not to mention if he pumps enough money and runs bradford correct it should be another strong team to the comp in 3 years how is that a bad thing?

Re: The mad doctor : Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:02 pm  

Im not sure where this idea of an anti Koukash clique seems to have sprung from, he didnt vote with the same people in the restructure debate as the marquee debate.

It seems he just has his own ideas, im not sure anyone is particularly getting together against him.

Re: The mad doctor : Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:03 pm  

craigizzard wrote:

Because the Hetheringtons are employees not majority owners. Nobody cries conflict of interest when the Grix brothers play against each other either.

so they don't have sway within there clubs? give over if Garry Heatherington says to his wife you need to vote this way she is going to argue with him? Didn't think so.

Re: The mad doctor : Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:06 pm  

dubairl wrote:

so they don't have sway within there clubs? give over if Garry Heatherington says to his wife you need to vote this way she is going to argue with him? Didn't think so.

She might not, im pretty sure the people who own the club she works for might. Similarly im pretty sure Paul Caddick didnt build businesses worth hundreds of millions by letting his employees run his companies as their personal playthings.

Re: The mad doctor : Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:10 pm  

dubairl wrote:

so they don't have sway within there clubs? give over if Garry Heatherington says to his wife you need to vote this way she is going to argue with him? Didn't think so.

He doesn't OWN the club. It's an entirely different thing. Owning two clubs in the same league is an invitation to financial and sporting malpractice which is why it's outlawed in every serious sports league in the world.

Say Salford play Bradford on the last day of the season. Salford are safe but a win keeps Bradford up. If Bradford lose the Koukash family stand to lose seven figures. Who wins the game? Is it due to a conflict of interest?

There's no equivalence with the Hetheringtons there because there's no massive personal financial stake.

Re: The mad doctor : Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:26 pm  

craigizzard wrote:

If Mandy Koukash has her own money and her own credit lines not guaranteed by her husband, then there's no significant conflict of interest.

If she doesn't then there absolutely is. Salford and Bradford would be owned by the same business/financial source/person and there's no major sport in the world that would allow that with two competing clubs in the same league.

This is the nub of it. No one really knows anything about Koukash's finances so it's difficult to speculate but I have my doubts she is independently funding this.

Another nightmare scenario for Chapeltown Road. They'll be desperate to end the Bradford saga and they'll be hammered if they block any deal. Similarly, they've got to protect the integrity of the competition and should scrutinise the takeover. No doubt they will also get hammered if they wave this deal through.

Re: The mad doctor : Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:32 pm  

Walshovski wrote:

This is the nub of it. No one really knows anything about Koukash's finances so it's difficult to speculate but I have my doubts she is independently funding this.

Another nightmare scenario for Chapeltown Road. They'll be desperate to end the Bradford saga and they'll be hammered if they block any deal. Similarly, they've got to protect the integrity of the competition and should scrutinise the takeover. No doubt they will also get hammered if they wave this deal through.

Let's go back in time!

Re: The mad doctor : Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:46 pm  

craigizzard wrote:

He doesn't OWN the club. It's an entirely different thing. Owning two clubs in the same league is an invitation to financial and sporting malpractice which is why it's outlawed in every serious sports league in the world.

Say Salford play Bradford on the last day of the season. Salford are safe but a win keeps Bradford up. If Bradford lose the Koukash family stand to lose seven figures. Who wins the game? Is it due to a conflict of interest?

There's no equivalence with the Hetheringtons there because there's no massive personal financial stake.

Are you really this naive? You don't think there is potential conflict of interest regardless of owner of very snr exec managing a club? Please do me a favour the potential is no different.

Re: The mad doctor : Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:59 pm  

Him wrote:

Not really but then I've not looked through the whole thread. Either way, the issue is that Dr Koukash used the f-word at a press event. Do you think that's acceptable and shouldn't be challenged by the RFL?

Would you think it acceptable for a coach to use the same word in a post match press conference and not be fined?

Honestly? I don't have a problem with any chairman or coach using the f-word. None at all. If it had been a family day, or if he'd sworn at the local junior RL club event he recently attended, you would have a point. At a press event? In a post match press conference when emotions may be running high? No, I don't buy it. And this isn't because I'm a Salford fan, it's because I can't stand the prude-like nature of some corners of society. "Ooh, look at the bad man using naughty words, children might hear it, it's a disgrace!"

As it is, rules is rules so he gets the fine. That doesn't mean people can't point out how ridiculous it is, though. You hear swearing at these things on a fairly regular basis, but it's usually brushed over pretty quickly. I remember some scouse boxer squaring up to his opponent saying "I'm going to f**k you up, you little rat" in a press conference and all that happened was that the sound got turned down and Sky Sports News apologised. Was forgotten soon after.

Any comment on swearing amongst the crowd, yet?

Him wrote:

Why would I?

I guess you wouldn't, after all, it may prove you wrong.

Him wrote:

It was YOU who suggested 95% of this forum want to see it fail. I've not seen that quantity of posts like that. In fact the only one I've seen on here has been from Roofs.

Like the other Salford fans, you're mistaking criticism and not agreeing with Salford being the next 90's Wigan as wanting Salford to fail.

Bullsh*t. (Ooh, sorry, I swore, better wait for the fine...) Have a dig back on here. Have a look at posts on the Turkey. Go a bit further, delve through posts on Facebook and Twitter. The vast majority of rugby league fans are lining up to see it fall flat. It's pathetic.

Him wrote:

In the same way as thinking the RFL fining a club official for inappropriate behaviour as victimisation.

Again, if you could point out where I've suggested he's being victimised by the RFL, it'd be much appreciated. Pointing out that it's a ridiculous outcry isn't a claim of victimisation, by the way. As it is, I think it's just another case of the game being run by a bunch of dinosaurs.