: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:44 pm  

RebelRebel wrote:

Anyone special in mind there?

No

: Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:35 pm  

TRB wrote:

You can take a man out of League, but you can't take League out of the man!

In Andy Farrell's case, a very astute assessment.

I remember watching the England v South Africa game (RUWC group stage) when Farrell (who had been playing in the back row for Wigan) was England stand off. England were being pummelled, had an attacking play close to the South African line, and Farrell went solo - as you might in RL - to gain ground from which to start another attack. He had absolutely no players in support, and as a result, turned over posession. The commentator's remark was "you can get away with that in league, but not in union". A stupid remark, for all its implications, but Farrell took the blame in the media for the rest of the gutless bunch losing the game, and was dropped for the next game. He came back to prove his class, even though it wasn't enough in the end.

It's interesting that Scott Quinell goes down on the list of one of the union players to have made a success of league. Forwards do not, as a rule. You can switch between the backs, as the codes have done over the last few decades and more, but it's in the forwards that the major differences between the 2 codes lie.

Losing players like Smith to union is very disappointing. Union seem to be paying us back for our nicking of their top players in the late 70s/80s. What goes around comes around. We have a good product, increased attendances and a closer competition than we ever had in the "one professional club" era. We may lose a few more players in the process, but as long as the sport continues to increase in popularity, it's a long-term sacrifice worth making.

: Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:09 am  

RebelRebel wrote:

In Andy Farrell's case, a very astute assessment.

I remember watching the England v South Africa game (RUWC group stage) when Farrell (who had been playing in the back row for Wigan) was England stand off. England were being pummelled, had an attacking play close to the South African line, and Farrell went solo - as you might in RL - to gain ground from which to start another attack. He had absolutely no players in support, and as a result, turned over posession. The commentator's remark was "you can get away with that in league, but not in union". A stupid remark, for all its implications, but Farrell took the blame in the media for the rest of the gutless bunch losing the game, and was dropped for the next game. He came back to prove his class, even though it wasn't enough in the end.

It's interesting that Scott Quinell goes down on the list of one of the union players to have made a success of league. Forwards do not, as a rule. You can switch between the backs, as the codes have done over the last few decades and more, but it's in the forwards that the major differences between the 2 codes lie.

Losing players like Smith to union is very disappointing. Union seem to be paying us back for our nicking of their top players in the late 70s/80s. What goes around comes around. We have a good product, increased attendances and a closer competition than we ever had in the "one professional club" era. We may lose a few more players in the process, but as long as the sport continues to increase in popularity, it's a long-term sacrifice worth making.

Would you pay £20 to watch a competative amateur game?

I could ring my mates up and get a competative game on in the morning would you pay £20 to watch it.

No silly response just a straight yes or no and a serious line to back it up either way.

: Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:11 am  

jonh wrote:

Would you pay £20 to watch a competative amateur game?

I could ring my mates up and get a competative game on in the morning would you pay £20 to watch it.

No silly response just a straight yes or no and a serious line to back it up either way.

No, I don't even pay that to watch a super league club.

: Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:15 am  

adam9641 wrote:

No, I don't even pay that to watch a super league club.

The question was aimed at Rebel, but the crux is, do you think people will pay to simply watch a competative sport regardless of the quality?

: Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:17 am  

jonh wrote:

The question was aimed at Rebel, but the crux is, do you think people will pay to simply watch a competative sport regardless of the quality?

I would pay to watch a competitive game as long as it was a reasonable price.

: Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:21 am  

adam9641 wrote:

I would pay to watch a competitive game as long as it was a reasonable price.

So you would base that decison on the quality of the product?

: Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:25 am  

jonh wrote:

So you would base that decison on the quality of the product?

Both.

I sometimes go watch Stanley Rangers watched Oulton a couple of times af my mate playes for them.

If I went again and they said you have to pay, it would depend how much they would charge.

I would not pay over the odds but I would not mind paying say up to a £5.

: Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:27 am  

adam9641 wrote:

Both.

I sometimes go watch Stanley Rangers watched Oulton a couple of times af my mate playes for them.

If I went again and they said you have to pay, it would depend how much they would charge.

I would not pay over the odds but I would not mind paying say up to a £5.

So would you be happy to see a player that increases the quality of the product leave if it ment the game was more competative?

: Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:31 am  

jonh wrote:

So would you be happy to see a player that increases the quality of the product leave if it ment the game was more competative?

Would not bother me, the player has to make his own mind up. I can't change what they want to do.

If the player thinks he has a better future else where then so be it, it's the same in any job, if you get offered more money to move you will take it.

There might be a few players going to union, but there is also a few payers coming from union to league.