|
Post by Tyler on Aug 29, 2009 18:47:32 GMT
When rugby playing toffs who look down on us common footballers start off with the "Football is a gay sport, they always go down saying they're hurt and then get up", are we allowed to respond by telling them all their players are druggies and cheats?
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Aug 30, 2009 16:12:10 GMT
Rugby v Football...a good discussion thread Tyler.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Aug 30, 2009 20:41:40 GMT
Its probably more open now that the rugger boys havent got the 'you're all poofs' line
|
|
|
Post by Desktop Hoggy on Aug 30, 2009 20:48:06 GMT
Not to mention that Super League is more corrupt than any footballing association, including FIFA.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Aug 30, 2009 23:27:36 GMT
Generally I find it is the football playing commoners who call Rugby players "gay poofs". After all we are just having a cuddle and grope when having scrum right.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Sept 3, 2009 21:28:22 GMT
Toffs?
You can say some Rugby players are druggies and cheats. If you want to tar everyone with the same brush then Football has been well and truly done up by Eduardo.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Sept 3, 2009 21:55:51 GMT
Thats what generally happens when ignorant toffs (yes, toffs) want to say how glorious, perfect and squeaky clean rugby is
|
|
|
Post by tigertiger on Sept 3, 2009 21:59:18 GMT
Not to mention that Super League is more corrupt than any footballing association, including FIFA. How exactly is Super League more corrupt than any football association?
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Sept 3, 2009 22:06:12 GMT
Thats what generally happens when ignorant toffs (yes, toffs) want to say how glorious, perfect and squeaky clean rugby is Which toffs? None of my mates from Rugby are toffs. Very few players in professional Rugby are 'Toffs'.
|
|
|
Post by Desktop Hoggy on Sept 4, 2009 0:09:54 GMT
Not to mention that Super League is more corrupt than any footballing association, including FIFA. How exactly is Super League more corrupt than any football association? Abolishing relegation from Super League and issuing Super League Licences to poo clubs (Celtic Crusaders, Salford and at one stage Catalans Dragons) where the likes of Widnes, Whitehaven and Halifax with a better infrastructure on and off the pitch get shafted.
|
|
|
Post by tigertiger on Sept 4, 2009 1:37:38 GMT
Abolishing relegation was in order to allow the game of rugby league in the UK and Europe develop, the franchise system as used in Australia allows clubs who have little if not nothing to play for use untried youth players and give them experience at the top level. As for Celtic Crusaders and Salford, both teams have come up from the Championship for one season and without the new system being in place Celtic would be relegated as would Castleford last year and Catalans a few years before, allowing these teams time in the top flight to develop is surely better than having 6-7 teams battling for promotion only to be relegated the next year and be in the poo cos the tried to compete in the Super league and now in the little leagues can't afford to keep afloat a la Widnes losing 3 points this year due to administration.
Personally i agree Widnes and Halifax should be in SL as should Barrow ahead of Haven. Also I would have a 2 tier system each with 10-12 teams in expanding the game to include a 2nd French team, an Irish team, a Scottish team and the possibility of either a German or more likely Italian side.
The franchise system IMO is not corrupt the expansion of rugby league is nessecary for the game in Europe to gain a greater footing and if allowing sides from areas were rugby league is not very popular is corrupt then who gives a poo, all i want from my sport is for it to evolve with greater following, better facilities and more money coming into it which can only happen from expansion and if that means leaving out teams from the heartlands to accomodate this evolution then so be it.
(Widnes, Haliax and Barrow or Whitehaven will have licences in 2011 anyways]
|
|
|
Post by Desktop Hoggy on Sept 4, 2009 2:54:49 GMT
I like the idea of Super League expanding but giving licences willy nilly has ended in disaster before. Paris St Germain only lasted two seasons while Gateshead Thunder lasted one season and ended up becoming Hull FC, bizzarely so the City of Hull can have a Super League club. Theres few Welsh players playing for Celtic Crusaders, not good for grassroots level or for the national rugby in Wales.
A 2 tiered Super League would be beneficial in the long term. Prospective clubs can apply for a licence and start off in the 2nd tier. No relegation in the 2nd tier but a relegation/promotion between the 1st and 2nd tiers. Allowing small clubs to develop without going into ruin but at the same time keeping Rugby League competitive.
|
|
|
Post by tigertiger on Sept 8, 2009 23:09:00 GMT
The Gateshead Hull thing was not bizzare, David Lloyd owned both Hull FC and Thunder, he decided that it was more beneficial to merge the two and base them in Hull as there is more intrest in rugby here seeing as we are a rugby city, so it was purely to fill Lloyds pockets and as a proud FC fan i'm very happy that it happened though we would have made SL in the end anyway
|
|
|
Post by lemonpiper on Sept 9, 2009 9:19:24 GMT
But surely that goes against your argument of wanting to develop it outside of rugby heartlands?
|
|
|
Post by tigertiger on Sept 11, 2009 9:47:28 GMT
It does go against that, but Fc is my team so there is some bias there tbh,and the fact that both clubs would have folded if left in the state they were or merged and stayed in Gateshead, Hull FC is a team rugby league need IMO and anyways we were in the superleague at the time of the merger, Gateshead were and expansion team yes, but they would not have survived without it after losing £700,000 in their first year alone
|
|
|
Post by lemonpiper on Sept 11, 2009 10:29:05 GMT
Don't you get annoyed at the rugby cutting up the pitch for the football team though?
|
|
|
Post by tigertiger on Sept 11, 2009 12:53:48 GMT
To be fiar we have good ground staff and the pitch is usually fine all year round, we have the odd are were there is litttle grass but the sand and turf compound works well for us
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Sept 13, 2009 15:10:32 GMT
League surely isn't that bad for ruining the grass is it? No contested scrums, no rucks, no rolling mauls...
|
|
|
Post by tigertiger on Sept 13, 2009 19:07:49 GMT
Not really probably more damage from the football with scuff marks from slide tackles etc
|
|