Re: The mad doctor : Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:55 am  

Charlie Sierra wrote: No, I don't think they should ignore those operational rules. Paranoid much? He broke a rule, the appropriate punishment has been assessed and served. No doubt he'll be on his Twitter soon, bragging about how he can pay that fine out of the loose change in his pocket. I am certainly paranoid but you are not qualified to assess it. If he has been fined for comments prejudicial to the sport there are a host of other chairs/owners who could be dealt with in the same manner. As you follow Leeds I'll ignore certain examples - and as i'm in a hurry - please explain why Tony Smith was recently fined for comments about the 'club-call' when McManus did exactly the same some time ago without any penalty? STORY Or Hudgell and his 'foundations of sand'comments? Or Rowley at Leigh and his 'hang their heads in shame' to the RFL when Crusaders got their Super League Licence?...

Charlie Sierra wrote: No, I don't think they should ignore those operational rules. Paranoid much? He broke a rule, the appropriate punishment has been assessed and served. No doubt he'll be on his Twitter soon, bragging about how he can pay that fine out of the loose change in his pocket. I am certainly paranoid but you are not qualified to assess it. If he has been fined for comments prejudicial to the sport there are a host of other chairs/owners who could be dealt with in the same manner. As you follow Leeds I'll ignore certain examples - and as i'm in a hurry - please explain why Tony Smith was recently fined for comments about the 'club-call' when McManus did exactly the same some time ago without any penalty? STORY Or Hudgell and his 'foundations of sand'comments? Or Rowley at Leigh and his 'hang their heads in shame' to the RFL when Crusaders got their Super League Licence?...

Re: The mad doctor : Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:35 am  

Red-Devils-PAW wrote: I am certainly paranoid OK. Red-Devils-PAW wrote: but you are not qualified to assess it. Hence the question mark. Did you really need a smilie as well? Why so confrontational? Red-Devils-PAW wrote: If he has been fined for comments prejudicial to the sport there are a host of other chairs/owners who could be dealt with in the same manner. As you follow Leeds I'll ignore certain examples - and as i'm in a hurry - please explain why Tony Smith was recently fined for comments about the 'club-call' when McManus did exactly the same some time ago without any penalty? STORY Or Hudgell and his 'foundations of sand'comments? Or Rowley at Leigh and his 'hang their heads in shame' to the RFL when Crusaders got their Super League Licence?... As you're in a hurry I'll save you some time and tell you now that I don't know the answers to your questions and there's no way I could know. You'd have to ask the people who made them. Have you? Yes, there are glaring inconsistencies in those examples but that doesn't mean that everybody is out to get Salford. When things have calmed down for you, I'd be interested to hear the Leeds examples. The only one that comes to mind now is McDermott's comments after last year's Catalans game.

Red-Devils-PAW wrote: I am certainly paranoid OK. Red-Devils-PAW wrote: but you are not qualified to assess it. Hence the question mark. Did you really need a smilie as well? Why so confrontational? Red-Devils-PAW wrote: If he has been fined for comments prejudicial to the sport there are a host of other chairs/owners who could be dealt with in the same manner. As you follow Leeds I'll ignore certain examples - and as i'm in a hurry - please explain why Tony Smith was recently fined for comments about the 'club-call' when McManus did exactly the same some time ago without any penalty? STORY Or Hudgell and his 'foundations of sand'comments? Or Rowley at Leigh and his 'hang their heads in shame' to the RFL when Crusaders got their Super League Licence?... As you're in a hurry I'll save you some time and tell you now that I don't know the answers to your questions and there's no way I could know. You'd have to ask the people who made them. Have you? Yes, there are glaring inconsistencies in those examples but that doesn't mean that everybody is out to get Salford. When things have calmed down for you, I'd be interested to hear the Leeds examples. The only one that comes to mind now is McDermott's comments after last year's Catalans game.

Re: The mad doctor : Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:48 am  

Of course there should be 2 plyrs not included on the cap. It'll get the media talking more about RL. I want a salary cap, but also I want a minimum spend, if you can't spend 90% of the cap then you shouldn't be in SL, otherwise it's not much more than a pub league.

Re: The mad doctor : Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:44 pm  

Red-Devils-PAW wrote: I am certainly paranoid but you are not qualified to assess it. If he has been fined for comments prejudicial to the sport there are a host of other chairs/owners who could be dealt with in the same manner. As you follow Leeds I'll ignore certain examples - and as i'm in a hurry - please explain why Tony Smith was recently fined for comments about the 'club-call' when McManus did exactly the same some time ago without any penalty? STORY Or Hudgell and his 'foundations of sand'comments? Or Rowley at Leigh and his 'hang their heads in shame' to the RFL when Crusaders got their Super League Licence?... Tony Smith wasn't fined for criticising the club call. He was fined for not turning up to it. It's the way you criticise. Swearing, talking of sleeping with women and comparing Nigel Wood to Hitler is not the way to do it. Hence the fine, which Dr Koukash has accepted.

Red-Devils-PAW wrote: I am certainly paranoid but you are not qualified to assess it. If he has been fined for comments prejudicial to the sport there are a host of other chairs/owners who could be dealt with in the same manner. As you follow Leeds I'll ignore certain examples - and as i'm in a hurry - please explain why Tony Smith was recently fined for comments about the 'club-call' when McManus did exactly the same some time ago without any penalty? STORY Or Hudgell and his 'foundations of sand'comments? Or Rowley at Leigh and his 'hang their heads in shame' to the RFL when Crusaders got their Super League Licence?... Tony Smith wasn't fined for criticising the club call. He was fined for not turning up to it. It's the way you criticise. Swearing, talking of sleeping with women and comparing Nigel Wood to Hitler is not the way to do it. Hence the fine, which Dr Koukash has accepted.

Re: The mad doctor : Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:47 pm  

OzWelsh wrote:

Of course there should be 2 plyrs not included on the cap. It'll get the media talking more about RL. I want a salary cap, but also I want a minimum spend, if you can't spend 90% of the cap then you shouldn't be in SL, otherwise it's not much more than a pub league.

A league of 5/6 teams isn't much more than a pub league either.
Plus the salary cap is only area where clubs need to spend money. Top coaches, conditioning, sports science, analysis, physio & rehab and training facilities is just as important as the money spent on first team players.

Re: The mad doctor : Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:46 pm  

Charlie Sierra wrote:

When things have calmed down for you, I'd be interested to hear the Leeds examples. The only one that comes to mind now is McDermott's comments after last year's Catalans game.

Maybe the operational rule that refer clubs to making approaches to players contracted to other clubs,
the ones that do not say it's OK to encourage a player to try to get his contract cancelled and when that fails get him to plead homesickness.

Re: The mad doctor : Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:51 pm  

bezzerscr wrote:

Maybe the operational rule that refer clubs to making approaches to players contracted to other clubs,
the ones that do not say it's OK to encourage a player to try to get his contract cancelled and when that fails get him to plead homesickness.

dont all the rules not say it isnt ok to encourage a player to try to get his contract cancelled and when that fails get him to plead homesickness?

Re: The mad doctor : Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:14 pm  

Charlie Sierra wrote: I'd be interested to hear the Leeds examples. The only one that comes to mind now is McDermott's comments after last year's Catalans game. How about Hetherington stating that the governing body was/is Impotent and Anonymous? It doesn't seem to be couched in humorous terms and there is no suggestion that the members of the press were as amused as they were listening to Dr K speak. Adam Pearson at Hull Fc reckons Sham - Fiasco - Root and branch overhaul - Expensive and Ineffectual Not prejudicial to the game,though. No suggestion of victimization against the owner of Salford Red Devils,of course.

Charlie Sierra wrote: I'd be interested to hear the Leeds examples. The only one that comes to mind now is McDermott's comments after last year's Catalans game. How about Hetherington stating that the governing body was/is Impotent and Anonymous? It doesn't seem to be couched in humorous terms and there is no suggestion that the members of the press were as amused as they were listening to Dr K speak. Adam Pearson at Hull Fc reckons Sham - Fiasco - Root and branch overhaul - Expensive and Ineffectual Not prejudicial to the game,though. No suggestion of victimization against the owner of Salford Red Devils,of course.

Re: The mad doctor : Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:30 pm  

Red-Devils-PAW wrote: How about Hetherington stating that the governing body was/is Impotent and Anonymous? It doesn't seem to be couched in humorous terms and there is no suggestion that the members of the press were as amused as they were listening to Dr K speak. Adam Pearson at Hull Fc reckons Sham - Fiasco - Root and branch overhaul - Expensive and Ineffectual Not prejudicial to the game,though. No suggestion of victimization against the owner of Salford Red Devils,of course. Did either of the statements you link to above include dropping the f-bomb? We're a family game and just because Salfords owner wants to be one of the lads there is no place for that language in comments from anyone professionally connected to the game!

Red-Devils-PAW wrote: How about Hetherington stating that the governing body was/is Impotent and Anonymous? It doesn't seem to be couched in humorous terms and there is no suggestion that the members of the press were as amused as they were listening to Dr K speak. Adam Pearson at Hull Fc reckons Sham - Fiasco - Root and branch overhaul - Expensive and Ineffectual Not prejudicial to the game,though. No suggestion of victimization against the owner of Salford Red Devils,of course. Did either of the statements you link to above include dropping the f-bomb? We're a family game and just because Salfords owner wants to be one of the lads there is no place for that language in comments from anyone professionally connected to the game!

Re: The mad doctor : Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:10 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

Did either of the statements you link to above include dropping the f-bomb? We're a family game and just because Salfords owner wants to be one of the lads there is no place for that language in comments from anyone professionally connected to the game!

Yep. But oh no, it's poor old Salford being picked on!