: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:30 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

They will get a team.

Yours.

You are aware that "my team" are Keighley?

I rate Jermaine Wray highly but I don't think he'll ever play Super League.

: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:08 am  

Hedgehog King wrote:

You are aware that "my team" are Keighley?

I rate Jermaine Wray highly but I don't think he'll ever play Super League.

My bad! But you never know...!

Re: : Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:45 pm  

SLIMply the best wrote:

said by a saints fan, who's club have not spent a penny on their urine stained pit of a ground for decades, get a life, get a new ground!

Your response was a good example of someone who couldn't think of anything intelligent to say and so dribbled garbage instead.

Saints are getting a new ground, haven't you heard? We've been trying to get a new ground for 20 years but guess what? We haven't been able to afford one! It's only because we now have an astute businessman for a chairman - who with his City colleague rescued us from the brink of administration in 2002 - that we are in a position to build a new stadium now, and we have been in Superleague all along and in the top division for most if not all of Rugby League's history. Which is why I think the RFL should have dropped the insistence upon Superleague clubs having new stadia: clubs without the history and/or financial know-how of Saints should not be punished. We were going to get a new stadium anyway. This plan has been progressing through the various stages for five years, before the criteria were set for the franchises. So I really don't know what your pathetic response was all about. I was showing sympathy to those clubs who are in worse positions than Saints and Saints are not in a great position financially in spite of all their success, simply because at least in part we have a delapidated stadium that is like a financial black hole. Which we won't have any longer come the early part of the 2011 season.

Re: Re: : Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:48 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Which is why I think the RFL should have dropped the insistence upon Superleague clubs having new stadia: .

And yet NL clubs were denied access to SL, as voted on by SL clubs, because of the stadia???? Double standards perhaps here???

Re: Re: : Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:01 pm  

Rotherham Fev Fan wrote:

And yet NL clubs were denied access to SL, as voted on by SL clubs, because of the stadia???? Double standards perhaps here???

What?

It was the RFL who decided the criteria for the licensing.

Re: Re: : Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:47 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

What?

It was the RFL who decided the criteria for the licensing.

yes it was.
Yet when Hunslet and Dews won the NL play-offs, they were not accepted by the SL chairmen because of their grounds!!

Yet you advocate the dispensing of the insistence by the RFL that SL clubs should have new stadia???

FWIW, I think you are correct. It's Not the 'end of the world argument' like, I just thought some double standards were being played out here given back then, the SL chairmen and the RFL used the ground as the reason for denied access to SL! Fair??

Re: Wrexham? : Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:43 am  

It has been confirmed this morning that crusaders will play most home games in wrexham and two in neath, also on tuesday the signings of Tony Martin, Nick Youngquest, Matt Utai and Michael Witt are set to be unvieled

Re: Wrexham? : Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:53 pm  

Matt Utai's not being unveiled. He's retiring from the sport due to injury.

Re: Re: : Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:17 pm  

Rotherham Fev Fan wrote:

Yet you advocate the dispensing of the insistence by the RFL that SL clubs should have new stadia???

Read my post again. I referred to the recession. That was the context in which I said that the RFL should drop the insistence upon new stadia being part of the licence arrangement. (I don't think I referred to SL clubs specifically)

Re: Re: : Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:25 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Which is why I think the RFL should have dropped the insistence upon Superleague clubs having new stadia: .

you may take the opportunity to read your post again!

So a recession occurs - SL clubs shouldn't be required to have new stadia. Is this correct???

Yet when a much less well funded club won the NL, there was an insistence by SL clubs that they SHOULD have a new stadium or vastly improved facilities. A fanancial burden which made it impossible for them to access SL cos of the SL clubs "insistence"!

Smells of double standards to me!