: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:58 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Are you really trying to argue there is a meaningful difference between saying

NL1 and NL2 arent the same thing

and

NL1 and NL2 are different things

That's not what you said, you said NL1 and NL2 are very different things, which is not the same as saying they're different things. Lions and tigers are different things but they're not very different things

: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:41 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Are you really trying to argue there is a meaningful difference between saying

NL1 and NL2 arent the same thing

and

NL1 and NL2 are different things

are you asking what the differences between NL1 and NL2 are? surely you already know that Starry, one is NL1 and one is NL2, one is the 2nd tier of RFL pyramid one is the 3rd, one is made up of generally bigger clubs than the other, one is a bigger competition than the other, one has better attendances than the other, one has a higher profile than the other, one is in general a bigger league than the other

Stop changing what you posted

You did not post that NL1 and NL 2 are different things

You posted that NL 1 clubs are verydifferent to NL 2 clubs

Now the thing is ALL clubs be they IN NL 1,NL2 , SL , NRL or elite 1 are different

But to try to make an argument that there is some fundamental difference between NL1 and NL 2 clubs that in some way would effect Toulouse is just bloody stupid

Especially as over the next 3 years Toulouse could potentially play against 4 of the clubs presently in NL 2 NOW and 2 clubs that only a few weeks ago were in NL2

You have also made much in the past of there being a definate major difference between SL and the NL's , but no real difference between NL 1 and NL 2

: Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:37 pm  

what a pathetic argument, very, is a completely subjective deliberately none specific word, or could either of you tell me the official level at which very can be applied?

Starbug, i never said there was a major difference between NL1 and NL2 clubs, you need to learn to read what is actually there and not what your desperate to be there

to try and make an argument that there is no fundemental difference between the 2nd and 3rd tiers is idiotic, even for your standards, its down at the likes of barnacle bill or bustinyaballs level, it would take an almost subhuman intellect to think there is no fundemental difference between the two different leagues,

the differences in size, popularity, exposure of NL1 compared to NL2 is huge, not the size of the difference between NL1 and SL, but still pretty large, this will be integral to the financing, funding, and chance of success of the Toulouse project, it would be a negative towards the potential of success for Toulouse for them to have to play in that league for a year,

and you would see that it is the sensible option to put Toulouse in NL1 and not allow them to drop to NL2 if you werent desperate to prove everything is bent so you can perpetuate your conspiracy and dont have to accept Leigh werent good enough

according to you Toulouse will be like a cancer in NL1, dragging support and the credibility of the league downwards because they only aim to use that league to get out of it into a higher league, yet in NL2 Toulouse would be doing exactly the same, you seem positive about putting them in NL2, a league full of clubs with a bit less support, a bit less money and a bit less able to deal with impact you believe Toulouse will have, therefore the clubs in that league will feel the hit much much more,

so by any logical conclusion you would agree Toulouse should be in NL1 rather than NL2, if not for any benefit for Toulouse, but as an altruistic fraternal gesture to your NL2 brothers, or could the more likely be true, and as is common with the people who generally agree with you, and you dont really give a flying f@ck about NL2, you dont give a flying f@ck about the game, and dont give a flying f@ck about the game outside of Leigh, and you decisions and opinions arent formed by judging whats in the best interests of the game, but the best interests of Leigh, and when we read your opinions it is always in the knowledge that if you were honest with yourself, you would choose leigh over the game everytime, and would even be in favour of doing something that wasnt in the games best interests (and would in fact be a negative for the game) as long as it benefitted Leigh Centaurions

: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:40 am  

If the NL1 clubs allow the inclusion of Toulouse to be a success by using it as a positive selling point for media, sponsors, spectators and players it will be a success. If they spend their time saying how terrible it is, bitching about the quota & relegation exemptions, complaining about away fans & travel costs; the decision to admit Toulouse will be seen as a mistake.

I wonder whether the NL1 chairmen want to make it a success, or whether some want a failure to make the RFL look stupid?

: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:13 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

what a pathetic argument, very, is a completely subjective deliberately none specific word, or could either of you tell me the official level at which very can be applied?

Starbug, i never said there was a major difference between NL1 and NL2 clubs, you need to learn to read what is actually there and not what your desperate to be there

to try and make an argument that there is no fundemental difference between the 2nd and 3rd tiers is idiotic, even for your standards, its down at the likes of barnacle bill or bustinyaballs level, it would take an almost subhuman intellect to think there is no fundemental difference between the two different leagues,

the differences in size, popularity, exposure of NL1 compared to NL2 is huge, not the size of the difference between NL1 and SL, but still pretty large, this will be integral to the financing, funding, and chance of success of the Toulouse project, it would be a negative towards the potential of success for Toulouse for them to have to play in that league for a year,

and you would see that it is the sensible option to put Toulouse in NL1 and not allow them to drop to NL2 if you werent desperate to prove everything is bent so you can perpetuate your conspiracy and dont have to accept Leigh werent good enough

according to you Toulouse will be like a cancer in NL1, dragging support and the credibility of the league downwards because they only aim to use that league to get out of it into a higher league, yet in NL2 Toulouse would be doing exactly the same, you seem positive about putting them in NL2, a league full of clubs with a bit less support, a bit less money and a bit less able to deal with impact you believe Toulouse will have, therefore the clubs in that league will feel the hit much much more,

so by any logical conclusion you would agree Toulouse should be in NL1 rather than NL2, if not for any benefit for Toulouse, but as an altruistic fraternal gesture to your NL2 brothers, or could the more likely be true, and as is common with the people who generally agree with you, and you dont really give a flying f@ck about NL2, you dont give a flying f@ck about the game, and dont give a flying f@ck about the game outside of Leigh, and you decisions and opinions arent formed by judging whats in the best interests of the game, but the best interests of Leigh, and when we read your opinions it is always in the knowledge that if you were honest with yourself, you would choose leigh over the game everytime, and would even be in favour of doing something that wasnt in the games best interests (and would in fact be a negative for the game) as long as it benefitted Leigh Centaurions

So you substitute major for very and you think that makes a difference to what you posted

You posted that NL1 clubs are very different to NL 2 clubs

They are not ,

Almost all are part time , thier relative attendances apart from 1 or 2 are very similar

Yes the ' bigger ' clubs in NL1 are better on a playing front than the clubs at the bottom of NL 2 and yet sometimes those teams do give the top teams a difficult time

I would hazard a guess that every NL club be they NL 1 or NL 2 are propped up financially by thier owners [ Not a single NL club is capable of breaking even on what most would term earned income ]

Yes Toulouse will be better off in NL1 than NL 2 , that is obvious

In the same way that a NL club would most likely be better off in SL if they had as much if not more money than the other SL clubs

Not exactly rocket science

Toulouse will not be a ' cancer ' in NL 1 , I have never stated that , 3 clubs will possibly suffer from thier inclusion as some of the fans of those 3 clubs will see thier club possibly miss out on a franchise in 2012

The other 7 clubs will be unaffected [ until one of those clubs finish above Toulouse but is still relegated ]

But none of these 10 clubs will gain anything from having Toulouse in NL 1

As far as NL 2 goes , well there will be no benifit to them

You state that I care little if nothing about any club outside the one I support , your perogative

Strange then that I communicate with fans of other clubs looking at ways that I can help them raise monies for thier clubs by doing various things we have done at Leigh

I have suggested various things like ' Home ' clubs paying coach travel to bring more away fans to matches and how the NL clubs both 1 and 2 should be looking at using one kit supplier to improve buying power [ something that the ' lesser ' NL 2 clubs would most benifit from ] , but I only share and discuss with fans of other NL clubs

I have accepted that the club I support will never play in SL again and can see that the competition we do play in needs to be strong or eventually the club I support will suffer

You say I dont care about the game as a whole , your perogative , I have little interest in the game above NL level because it doesn't need any of my help but below it I have much interest and have done much to help the game at amatuer level


And finally the pedantic part Leigh Centaurions

Maybe they will play the 1 st GF on Venus

: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:27 pm  

CS at home wrote:

If the NL1 clubs allow the inclusion of Toulouse to be a success by using it as a positive selling point for media, sponsors, spectators and players it will be a success. If they spend their time saying how terrible it is, bitching about the quota & relegation exemptions, complaining about away fans & travel costs; the decision to admit Toulouse will be seen as a mistake.

I wonder whether the NL1 chairmen want to make it a success, or whether some want a failure to make the RFL look stupid?

So you think that the clubs in NL 1 will be able to pull more sponsorship and get more fans through the turnstiles because of the inclusion of Toulouse

You are in dreamland , it is a no win situation , if Toulouse do well on the pitch the fans will see it as they are being allowed to flout the salary cap and quota rules , if they do badly and potentially end up in a relegation place the fans will question why they have been allowed in NL 1 instead of starting in NL2

And all this is costing the RFL close to a million pounds over the 3 years

And yet every NL club is struggling to survive

: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:53 pm  

Starbug wrote:

So you substitute major for very and you think that makes a difference to what you posted

well i did that because a sentence saying, i never said there was a very difference between NL1 and NL2 clubs
wouldnt make sense

You posted that NL1 clubs are very different to NL 2 clubs

They are not ,

Almost all are part time , thier relative attendances apart from 1 or 2 are very similar

Yes the ' bigger ' clubs in NL1 are better on a playing front than the clubs at the bottom of NL 2 and yet sometimes those teams do give the top teams a difficult time

I would hazard a guess that every NL club be they NL 1 or NL 2 are propped up financially by thier owners [ Not a single NL club is capable of breaking even on what most would term earned income ]

for the third time, no i didnt, you can clearly read, so i have no idea why you have decided the word clubs is there when it clearly isnt,

there is big differences between NL1 and NL2, not least one being the 2nd tier and one the 3rd, which will make a huge difference to Toulouses ability to sell themselves to the french

Yes Toulouse will be better off in NL1 than NL 2 , that is obvious

and as such it would be idiotic to put them in NL2,

In the same way that a NL club would most likely be better off in SL if they had as much if not more money than the other SL clubs

yes, anybody would be better off if you gave them a bit of money, but no one has suggested anything like this, so it seems strange you bring it up

Not exactly rocket science

pretty random though,

Toulouse will not be a ' cancer ' in NL 1 , I have never stated that , 3 clubs will possibly suffer from thier inclusion as some of the fans of those 3 clubs will see thier club possibly miss out on a franchise in 2012

The other 7 clubs will be unaffected [ until one of those clubs finish above Toulouse but is still relegated ]

But none of these 10 clubs will gain anything from having Toulouse in NL 1

so they wont lose anything, suffer no ill affects, and get £100k from the RFL every year, what on earth do you have to moan about?

other than maybe Toulouse being given the same opportunity as Leigh to get promoted, and your scared they will prepare better than you

As far as NL 2 goes , well there will be no benifit to them

mainly because they wont be in NL2, but even if they were it would (according to you) have no effect whatsoever, yet you still moan

You state that I care little if nothing about any club outside the one I support , your perogative

Strange then that I communicate with fans of other clubs looking at ways that I can help them raise monies for thier clubs by doing various things we have done at Leigh

I have suggested various things like ' Home ' clubs paying coach travel to bring more away fans to matches and how the NL clubs both 1 and 2 should be looking at using one kit supplier to improve buying power [ something that the ' lesser ' NL 2 clubs would most benifit from ] , but I only share and discuss with fans of other NL clubs

you must be very proud of yourself

I have accepted that the club I support will never play in SL again and can see that the competition we do play in needs to be strong or eventually the club I support will suffer

strange then the only negative to Toulouses inclusion is they may stop some clubs getting a SL place in the future, but at least one of those you know isnt anywhere near ready, yet still you moan

You say I dont care about the game as a whole , your perogative , I have little interest in the game above NL level because it doesn't need any of my help but below it I have much interest and have done much to help the game at amatuer level

seems odd how much time you spend moaning about what SL does then?

: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:57 pm  

Starbug wrote:

So you think that the clubs in NL 1 will be able to pull more sponsorship and get more fans through the turnstiles because of the inclusion of Toulouse

You are in dreamland , it is a no win situation , if Toulouse do well on the pitch the fans will see it as they are being allowed to flout the salary cap and quota rules , if they do badly and potentially end up in a relegation place the fans will question why they have been allowed in NL 1 instead of starting in NL2

And all this is costing the RFL close to a million pounds over the 3 years

And yet every NL club is struggling to survive

but you have just said the NLs will suffer no ill effects because of Toulouse inclusion? yet here you are saying they would? strange

also, what makes you think the NLs would be the recipient of another £1m or that they deserve it? the NLs are already taking £100k a year (every year) each more than before whilst contributing very little more to the game, yet you are complaining that a completely seperate £330k is being devoted to expanding the game,

ridiculous

: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:11 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

they have joined in NL1, there was no way for them to qualify from NL1, what use would it have been to them and NL2 clubs to make them play in NL2 for a year?

and NL1 clubs and NL2 clubs are very different things

Must be the drugs

: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:13 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

for the third time, no i didnt, you can clearly read, so i have no idea why you have decided the word clubs is there when it clearly isnt,

See above post