Re: Marwen And The RFL debate : Fri May 20, 2016 2:05 pm  

Rarebreed wrote:

Marwen K is a typical knee jerk reactionary as we all seem to realise. I believe no one in their right minds would think that 12 clubs in the SL would have the clout to re negotiate a done deal with SKY?
However if his flamboyant actions bring about a vote of no confidence in the present management structures at the RFL, then he may have done some good.
I thought that Sally Bolton MBE would have been a option to keep in the game at a high level, however if it hadn't been for Maurice Lyndsey pointing out that it was her and her team, and not Nigel who were the architect of the success we enjoyed, I don't think she would have been given any credit at all! Similarly when SL said they had lined up a General Manager for the League, the RFL stepped in and appointed Blake Solly, who seemingly created a problem for his boss, insofar that he seemed to believe he was working for the benefit of SL not the RFL. Or so the report in League Express went, when we found out he had suddenly resigned his job with SL.
Certainly many questions need answering and I feel that the least the SL council could do was to call for an EGM ( If enough clubs call for an Emergency General Meeting, they can't refuse)to raise all the issues Mr K has talked about?
But as a friend in the game said, "We shall see, as they don't call him Teflon Nigel for nothing!"

He also doesn't help himself when he wants the backing of the other SL clubs, but then slags them off in the same press conference, as he did with Catalans.

He'd have no chance of Catalans support now even if they agreed with him, after his mental breakdown over them. Although it did lead to an amusing response from the Catalans chairman last night.

Re: Marwen And The RFL debate : Fri May 20, 2016 3:46 pm  

daveyz999 wrote:

If I reword to say the 'Top Tier' instead of 'Super League'.

If there is serious interest in the clubs breaking away and creating a new league, it would make sense to "invite" a club with huge tradition and following to play in the new league. The whole middle 8 games would (hopefully) be abolished, meaning there is a case to have a larger top league. Could also be good news for Leigh, who would welcome the idea of having a higher salary cap limit.

Where as that would be logical it would be at the expense of existing SL clubs as the Chairmen have already voted for a limit of 12 clubs in SL. It would therefore mean turkeys (as the saying goes) voting for Christmas. Personally I believe we could not survive in a league where all the other clubs have a rich backer and the prospect of no salary cap.

Re: Marwen And The RFL debate : Fri May 20, 2016 9:36 pm  

daveyz999 wrote:

When I read his statement I actually thought he was referring to the Bulls (and other championship clubs) when he stated the RFL were more concerned at promoting the game in France and Canada, as a result strong Rugby Towns/Cities were now in decline (from a rugby perspective).

Knobrash would have a cheek if he had an issue with promoting the game elsewhere. After all, whilst I am no expert, I would not have thought that the surname Koucash was in the top 5 of names in Yorkshire or Lancashire?

[Bulliac]

Re: Marwen And The RFL debate : Sat May 21, 2016 8:37 am  

daveyz999 wrote:

If I reword to say the 'Top Tier' instead of 'Super League'.

If there is serious interest in the clubs breaking away and creating a new league, it would make sense to "invite" a club with huge tradition and following to play in the new league. The whole middle 8 games would (hopefully) be abolished, meaning there is a case to have a larger top league. Could also be good news for Leigh, who would welcome the idea of having a higher salary cap limit.

I may be wrong, but I find it hard to imagine any breakaway group voting to dilute its share of cash by inviting extra clubs to the party. There may be, as mentioned, some element of forward looking individuals involved in any newly re-formed SL, but in my experience, pragmatic self interest usually trumps any such high falutin' ideas.

Re: Marwen And The RFL debate : Thu May 26, 2016 8:55 am  

The answer is obvious. The RFL should immediately expel Salford from SL. Logic would suggest that Leigh replace them. But the RFL are nothing if not ILlogical and anyway DB is just a Primark version of Koucash. As everyone knows we are the RFLs favoured child so we should be promoted into SL with a 3year dispensation from the middle 8's.

Re: Marwen And The RFL debate : Thu May 26, 2016 11:33 am  

Well, Koukash has gotten what he wanted and it will be a completely independent panel to hear Salford's appeal.

However, given that Salford pretty much got away with purposely setting out to break the salary cap rather than as happened previously with clubs breaking the cap on technicalities and poorly defined rules when the RFL appointed the panel you have to wonder what will happen when a body with no connect to the sport gets involved. Clearly Koukash thinks they'll be on his side - however you have to wonder what his response would be if they not only hold up the deduction and fine but increase it

Re: Marwen And The RFL debate : Thu May 26, 2016 11:37 am  

roofaldo2 wrote:

Well, Koukash has gotten what he wanted and it will be a completely independent panel to hear Salford's appeal.

However, given that Salford pretty much got away with purposely setting out to break the salary cap rather than as happened previously with clubs breaking the cap on technicalities and poorly defined rules when the RFL appointed the panel you have to wonder what will happen when a body with no connect to the sport gets involved. Clearly Koukash thinks they'll be on his side - however you have to wonder what his response would be if they not only hold up the deduction and fine but increase it

His response will presumably be along the lines of getting everyone to admit they hate the independent panel and declaring them unfit for purpose. It's pretty much all he knows how to react with.

Re: Marwen And The RFL debate : Thu May 26, 2016 3:16 pm  

He seems to have a problem with whether he has broken the rules or are the rules fair

Re: Marwen And The RFL debate : Thu May 26, 2016 3:38 pm  

roofaldo2 wrote:

Well, Koukash has gotten what he wanted and it will be a completely independent panel to hear Salford's appeal.

However, given that Salford pretty much got away with purposely setting out to break the salary cap rather than as happened previously with clubs breaking the cap on technicalities and poorly defined rules when the RFL appointed the panel you have to wonder what will happen when a body with no connect to the sport gets involved. Clearly Koukash thinks they'll be on his side - however you have to wonder what his response would be if they not only hold up the deduction and fine but increase it

Imagine if the independent panel withhold the original ruling, his meltdown will be off the charts.

One thing that puzzled me about all this though, is what Marwan said they were actually docked the points for in his recent press conference. There wasn't any mention of the supposed double contract for Puletua, they were pulled up on rent payments and medical bills for a player's wife.
So if he's being truthful here, whatever happened to the Puletua stuff? Was it all above board? Is that the separate charge the RFL are rumoured to be bringing against them?

Re: Marwen And The RFL debate : Thu May 26, 2016 4:24 pm  

roofaldo2 wrote:

Well, Koukash has gotten what he wanted and it will be a completely independent panel to hear Salford's appeal.

Not sure that's accurate, although I agree that's the way the good doc is trying to portray it. The current version of the Operational Rules clearly states:

A challenge or claim shall be submitted to a three person tribunal appointed in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of Sports Resolutions (UK),