Re: KR : Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:24 pm  

Nothus wrote:

The more you think about the RFL's decision and thought process here, the more bewildering it becomes.
Did they honestly think we would keep the entire squad intact after being liquidated? Really?!
And on top of that, what would we pay them with considering how we were only getting £150k of funding?

Just utterly ridiculous, short-sighted, naive, call it what you want.

We should have gone into Champ 1 and someone else (Toronto?) should have taken our place.
Instead we are now going to have to endure a tortuous season of hammerings and humiliation before we are (probably) relegated anyway.

I agree entirely, and it's really p!ssed me off that that comment and explanation by wood has just gone unchallenged. It demonstrates unhinged thinking and leadership. And whilst our previous owners all set the bonfire up and lit it, in trying to put out the fire the rfl repeatedly seem to think petrol is just the trick. And we're supposed to be thankful for all the assistance...

Re: KR : Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:26 pm  

But back on topic, all i want from the kr game is no injuries and another good effort for 80 mins hopefully building some combinations for the more realistic games to come. But I doubt we'll keep them under 50.

Re: KR : Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:34 pm  

Our one hope of avoiding a complete drumming is that it's early in the season and the KR players will still be getting used to playing as a team - they have a lot of new faces.
It will probably finish something like 42-10.

Going to keep a keen eye on what handicap we're given by the bookies.

Re: KR : Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:53 pm  

Duckman wrote:

I agree entirely, and it's really p!ssed me off that that comment and explanation by wood has just gone unchallenged. It demonstrates unhinged thinking and leadership. And whilst our previous owners all set the bonfire up and lit it, in trying to put out the fire the rfl repeatedly seem to think petrol is just the trick. And we're supposed to be thankful for all the assistance...

Where on twitter did Woods say that?

And once the RFL granted dispensation on the cap and quota, SL clubs were always going to fill their boots.

Re: KR : Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:58 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote: Where on twitter did Woods say that? And once the RFL granted dispensation on the cap and quota, SL clubs were always going to fill their boots. https://twitter.com/TheRFL/status/825019915828596737

Bully_Boxer wrote: Where on twitter did Woods say that? And once the RFL granted dispensation on the cap and quota, SL clubs were always going to fill their boots. https://twitter.com/TheRFL/status/825019915828596737

Re: KR : Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:58 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

Where on twitter did Woods say that?

And once the RFL granted dispensation on the cap and quota, SL clubs were always going to fill their boots.

HamsterChops got the link, and you're right, all the best players were going to sign elsewhere. You me and the rest of the rl world knew that, but not Nigel apparently. Also, he's just wrong technically, when they made the desicion the players had been made redundant, so we had zero players, not "the bulk of their squad left" as Nigel claims. Demonstrating he was either lieing about his revision of the events or incompetent as to understanding what was really happening. Either way it's not the actions of someone I'd trust to help sort out our problems.

[Bullseye]

Re: KR : Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:31 pm  

So why not change that decision given what he now knows?

Re: KR : Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:38 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

So why not change that decision given what he now knows?

Good question. I'd hoped one of the rl journos might have picked up on it and asked some awkward questions or (God forbid) done some investigative journalism..... #doesn't hold breath#

It makes me think the failed bidders might have a point about the process not quite being fully transparent or fair.

Also, apologies for the thread drift, probably not the thread for my whinging!

Re: KR : Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:47 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

So why not change that decision given what he now knows?

I suspect you could come up with your own answers for that

Re: KR : Tue Jan 31, 2017 3:03 pm  

Duckman wrote:

Good question. I'd hoped one of the rl journos might have picked up on it and asked some awkward questions or (God forbid) done some investigative journalism..... #doesn't hold breath#

It makes me think the failed bidders might have a point about the process not quite being fully transparent or fair

I asked the original question on twitter fully not expecting it to be answered so was surprised it got a response - more than the journos seem to have gotten - even if it does raise more questions.

My follow up - which Mr Wood had plenty of time left in the chat to address but chose not to - is when was this "decision" made? The first public statement was after it had been announced the club was liquidated, so how can they realistically expect the squad to stay together.

Also the implication for his original answer could be read that he no longer thinks the Bulls position is fair! Thanks again for that top favour then Nige! Surprised no journos I have seen have picked up on it, as it's quite a frank admission for a tweet. Maybe now it's been posted on here it will...!

That said LE do seem to be pulling on the thread of the liquidation and the RFL's vested interest a little more every week. For me, they aren't pulling hard enough but something absolutely stinks about the whole process from somewhere and I hope it won't get dropped - alas like the past admins I fear it'll be forgotten by everyone else quite quickly