Re: 2011 SL Transfers : Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:33 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote:

Did make me laugh that. I think "circumstances" that poor Rovers find themselves victims of are signing up 3 and a half years ago to having 5 overseas players in 2011 then through a combination of applying for exemptions and deliberately building a team around the likes of Ben Fisher, suddenly finding themselves into double digits on overseas players and with only 7 spots in their first choice 17 available to British players. Talk about hard done-to

You going to do a graph about that or would you like me to explain Grubbs to you again?

Re: 2011 SL Transfers : Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:37 pm  

Barnacle Bill wrote:

There are clubs which receive a fraction of the criticism that Hull KR do that have no excuse, no good reason at all for fielding more than 5 overseas players next season.

Because Hull Kingston Australia are fielding 10.

I have been told ad infinitum by our kipper loving friend that Leeds youth system is wonderful. It should be, they've had years to build it and no need to rob Peter to Pay Paul to finance it.

thats because Leeds are a well run club, the fact is they make a profit, have invested millions more into their stadium than Hull KA. Why does that mean they have to achieve more again? you are simply holding leeds to a higher standard, because they are run better, then complaining that whilst they are doing better than Hull KA in pretty much every facet, they should be doing even more than everyone else and because they arent it is comparable to Hull KA's failures, which is quite obviously the myopic one-club nonsense you are famous for.

They will have more overseas players next year than this. Not only that, one player coming in will be 33 at the start of the season, and the same hypocrit will then lecture about young English players not getting a game at Hull KR.

no we wont, we currently have one less than we did last season. We would need to sign two more overseas players for us to have more than we did last year. For a change Bill, you are simply factually incorrect.

Incidentally I notice that young Luke Ambler will be making way for Cross to fit in at Leeds next season. I wonder what spin the kipper meister will put on that one.

There is no spin, No need to be, you are factually incorrect, Cross is replacing Eastwood.

No you wouldn't. If somebody offered you a team capable of a Wembly or Grand final apearance you'd snap their hand off.

only the short-termist and idiotic (thats you btw) would sacrifice the long term growth and stability of the club for a short-term shot at glory.

The role of a SL club is to win games, it is not a factory for English (or even local, as you put it) players, what is the point in that?

to create a stable, self-sufficient club, in a growing, stable, self-sufficient, improving league.

Re: 2011 SL Transfers : Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:49 pm  

Barnacle Bill wrote:

You should write what you mean instead of writing what you don't mean.

Or you could just read what it says and not try desperately to make it mean something else.

In what way is giving a young English player, released by another club, a job less preferable than bringing through your own juniors? What exactly is lost to the game by signing a player from another club for example Hull KR signing Liam Watts from Castleford. I would happily sign 25 players like that.

ooh selective quoting, this is fun. If we can get a factual inaccuracy, a contradiction. and a straw-man from you in one post it will be another grand slam

Oh, and it is preferable because you should rely on your own club, you should have your own Liam Watts, by all means add them when you can, but you should have a fair few of your own to start with

Well done you. Clever boy!

well it seemed someone needed to explain it for you, I thought it was obvious to anyone but it seems i gave you too much credit!

You can argue such hypothtical scenarios with yourself all night for me kipper man.

oooh, theres the contradiction, as opposed to being obvious enough to deserve a patronising retort, it is now only hypothetical that Billy Slater improved because of his introduction to first grade.

Or indeed the binning off of Luke Ambler to make way for a 33 year old Aussie journeyman.

oooh, a factual inaccuracy, Luke Ambler signed a two year contract extension last year. He is being loaned out to get more experience as Leeds also have Amor and Pitts at prop. He isnt being binned off.

Oh and Cross (32 not 33) is a replacement for Eastwood, not for Ambler

Yes, we'll all take a lecture from Leeds. They're really giving youth a chance aren't they?

aaaww, you see this is an informal fallacy but im not sure its a straw-man. Its clearly nonsense, but you know what, we missed out on the Bill Grandslam of nonsense this time. im sure we will get one soon.

Re: 2011 SL Transfers : Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:55 pm  

Barnacle Bill wrote:

The "blind defence" of Hull KR is solely down to the criticism being levelled at the club with no regard, none at all, for the circumstances which brought Hull KR to this position and the total disregard for the things the club have delivered on in such a short space of time. Things which clubs with access to SL money for three times as long have abjectly failed to deliver on.

There has been only so much money available, what Hull KR have done is deliver real improvements to the stadium, fielded a competitive side and actually brought quite a lot to the competition.

Since promotion, what actual ground improvements have been delivered with this additional Sky money? A small extension to one end of the East Stand in 2008?

Re: 2011 SL Transfers : Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:59 pm  

Barnacle Bill wrote:

You going to do a graph about that or would you like me to explain Grubbs to you again?

Rovers sign up to a unanimous agreement to close loopholes and get to 5 overseas players for the 2011 season in 2007. Rovers seek further loopholes and actually go into 2011 with 10 overseas players. Rovers fan claims they are the victim of "circumstances".

Re: 2011 SL Transfers : Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:08 pm  

Barnacle Bill wrote:

No you wouldn't. If somebody offered you a team capable of a Wembly or Grand final apearance you'd snap their hand off.

I am a fan of the Game...........and a supporter of my club. The Game is bigger than any club.......

After yet another dismal showing by supposedly the best 24 English players on offer.....I would much rather that all SL clubs developed another 5 or 6 players each who are able to step up rather than go to Wembley...win the CC Final and be told they were a team full of aussies......I don't short term solutions....short term solutions only work in the short term. For the game to grow......the rules that all the clubs agreed to need to be adhered to.......

Barnacle Bill wrote:

The role of a SL club is to win games, it is not a factory for English (or even local, as you put it) players, what is the point in that?

Interesting. I though the role of a SL Club was to have crowds of 10,000 and a travelling support of 6 million.......that's what most HKA fans have been saying about London RL for years.
The reason that there were rules agreed to on overseas players was to ensure that all licenced clubs in SL were developing UK talent.....if you'd rather go back to the days when Wigan won everything and the rest of the UK laughed at the 'northern" game then fine......but don't drag the rest of us with you........Huddersfield are a good example of what the RFL blueprint was looking for......East Hull is not. Neither is Leeds, Wakey or even Wigan....just to ease your persecution complex

Re: 2011 SL Transfers : Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:46 pm  

I for one don't support Leeds signing Cross, nor did I support them signing Brett Delaney. IMO if Leeds didn't have those two next year, we'd have the balance about right in terms of overseas players in the squad. Unfortunately unless all clubs play by the spirit of the aim to reduce overseas players, then they will all continue to go on as they have been.

Re: 2011 SL Transfers : Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:13 am  

madtigerman wrote:

becuase Zak Hardaker was signed my leeds and went back out on loan to featherstone rovers.

OK. Now you see him, now you don't.

Ah, I just read your note at the bottom.

Re: 2011 SL Transfers : Tue Nov 09, 2010 7:17 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

I for one don't support Leeds signing Cross, nor did I support them signing Brett Delaney. IMO if Leeds didn't have those two next year, we'd have the balance about right in terms of overseas players in the squad. Unfortunately unless all clubs play by the spirit of the aim to reduce overseas players, then they will all continue to go on as they have been.

As a Hull fan I don't support the prospect of bringing in Rovelli from the NRL either. The concept of being able to take a reasonable stance and to critique one's own club in it's recruitment policy in this regard is lost on the one-eyed Rovers defence brigade on here. Clearly 10 overseas players is not the way to go, but for now we'll get the line about not breaking the rules, then they'll actively seek further exemptions and loopholes. No evidence to suggest otherwise at all.

Re: 2011 SL Transfers : Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:06 am  

As Super League is a competition including Enlgish, Welsh and French teams it should be a maximum of five players in your squad who aren't English, Welsh or French. Whether players from other European nations should be exempt from the quota list is something that should be looked into.