: Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:13 pm  

I think it was excuse of administration.But hey new board now.It ok to bail london out when where in debts of 3 million? That means corruption.Anyway nevermind you never know next may get rid of others for scottish team,irish team and a midlands team.

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:20 pm  

Soldierboy wrote:

I think it was excuse of administration.But hey new board now.It ok to bail london out when where in debts of 3 million? That means corruption.Anyway nevermind you never know next may get rid of others for scottish team,irish team and a midlands team.

I know it's no comfort - but we did not support the London rescue!

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:34 pm  

Soldierboy wrote:

I think it was excuse of administration.But hey new board now.It ok to bail london out when where in debts of 3 million? That means corruption.Anyway nevermind you never know next may get rid of others for scottish team,irish team and a midlands team.

Another French team and another Welsh team, perhaps. A Cumbrian team would make even more sense. An Irish / Scottish team would be about as popular / successful as Paris. Unfortunately, the game of rugby league could do with a few clubs emerging as contenders here for any idea of a "home nations" competition to have any credibility, IMO.

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:38 pm  

t-r-i-n-i-t-y wrote:

It's ok talking Fev this, Widnes that, but they, like ourselves have 100 years or there about to secure a place in the elite. What makes them more special and more worthy than a newer club?

What does this mean?

This ‘100 years’ rubbish is a pathetic, and meaningless, platitude trotted out by the terminally thick on the VT. There are many clubs in the Championship and Championship1 that have been as successful, or indeed more successful, over the last 100 years or so than Wakefield Trinity.

So do you, in fact, only mean the last decade or so?

As far as ‘newer clubs’ are concerned, then they are supposed to be judged on the same criterion as everybody else. I think it is clear that they are not. So the question should be: What is so special about them?

: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:52 am  

TRB wrote:

I know it's no comfort - but we did not support the London rescue!

Please don't, it will only encourage more badly argued griping.

: Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:22 am  

with due respect to leigh from what I saw of their performance last night, they are are light years away from even competing at the bottom of the table,
if they was to get a way in to the super league with their new stadium, they would only reap the benefits of the team that they replaced with most of their players

: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:50 am  

jonh wrote:

I fully expect within 2 more franshice "picks" a closed shop at the top with NL clubs becoming feeder clubs, it is the only way to go for me, but only once we have the top division settled.

Selfish man
Why should Rovers who by the way have won honours in recent memory be a feeder club to anyone?

: Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:45 am  

snowie wrote:

with due respect to leigh from what I saw of their performance last night, they are are light years away from even competing at the bottom of the table,
if they was to get a way in to the super league with their new stadium, they would only reap the benefits of the team that they replaced with most of their players

Listen mate Leigh have paid little for the team this year, mainly local kids making the step up as part timers, we even rested our more needed last night.
Give us £2.5m more income, which is what SL does as a minimum and the new stadium would make us as good as the bottom two now.
Guarantee entry like CC or Cats were and we could build for it, yet both will have finished bottom in the first year

: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:59 pm  

Having visitied BV for the first time in about 20 years last night, I must admit to thinking it hadn't changed much and if this is what the RFL are wanting to get rid of then I can see their reasoning.

And then, stood up on a terrace with a pint surrounded by Wakefield fans creating a half decent friendly atmosphere watching good rugby, I thought 'why the hell should this lot be potentially kicked out for anyone just because the ground isn't a charachterless concrete lump?' Its nonsense.

Give me a raw BV over the JJB or Galpharm anyday of the week. Access to the topflight should be on merit, same rules for all of us, not on how many baby changing facilites you have.

I've seen Leigh win at pretty much every top flight club over the years and the thing that pi55es me off the most though is patronising SL fans looking down their noses from their lofty perches at clubs who have more tradition and success than their own, and waxing lyrical about how wonderful they are and how we should run non SL clubs. Thats very easy to say when theres a juicy cheque from Sky sat on the boardroom table.

: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:18 pm  

Alexs Dad wrote:

Having visitied BV for the first time in about 20 years last night, I must admit to thinking it hadn't changed much and if this is what the RFL are wanting to get rid of then I can see their reasoning.

And then, stood up on a terrace with a pint surrounded by Wakefield fans creating a half decent friendly atmosphere watching good rugby, I thought 'why the hell should this lot be potentially kicked out for anyone just because the ground isn't a charachterless concrete lump?' Its nonsense.

Give me a raw BV over the JJB or Galpharm anyday of the week. Access to the topflight should be on merit, same rules for all of us, not on how many baby changing facilites you have.

I've seen Leigh win at pretty much every top flight club over the years and the thing that pi55es me off the most though is patronising SL fans looking down their noses from their lofty perches at clubs who have more tradition and success than their own, and waxing lyrical about how wonderful they are and how we should run non SL clubs. Thats very easy to say when theres a juicy cheque from Sky sat on the boardroom table.

well said that man