Has anybody got one good thing to say about FC or Rugby League...........er no didn't think so. Well hear goes. 1) you dont need a map for away games. Just follow the M62 2) It something to play if your two short for a proper game of Rugby 3) It's a nice game for people who can only count to six
I didn't know that either. Where do the other teams come from? The only 3 RL teams I can name are both hull clubs and Leeds rhinos. Dont RL use wembley for their cup final?
Yorkshire - Huddersfield, Leeds, Bradford, Castleford, Hull FC, Hull KR and Wakefield. Non- Yorkshire - Perpignan, Wigan, Warrington, Widnes, St.Helens, London and Salford. I confess, I did have to look them up.
and that is the sport in its entire existence? Anyone fancy copy/pasting a list of England's 92 professional football club? That would be argument over.
They used to, but wanted it for virtualy free. They moved to Cardiff but had to agree to play extra games there to make up the cash shortfall. They now have "millenium magic" where four games are played in one day. So a game b etween Hull Nd Rovers needs a trip to Cardiff instead of a walk round the corner.
Wrong. The cup final is at Wembley, the grand final at Old Trafford and the magic weekend (an extra game not a replacement) at the etihad. There are also the championship leagues, with another 24 (i think) teams, with about 4 of them from Yorkshire. Im not getting into the pictures stuff because its that pathetic.
I am sure we will soon be deluged with one line insults from RL ******s in the way you get hundereds of childish posts on the HDM message boards between both sets of tubby lards...lets see first hand if there are any reasoned intellectual responses.. shouldn't take long...
INot totally wrong. They may well now be back at Wembley, but only because the original deal at Cardiff had reached the end and Cardiff wanted a better price that made Wembley viable.
A quick look around that site and you can start to see the problem. It's very insular and doesn't seem to tolerate oposing views, so there's no real debate about whether a problem exists in reality. If there's a genuine problem it affects us too, because no matter what somw would prefer, the shared stadium saves us money too. It's just they've bristled with indignation, but s no solid base to their argument. They seem to have forgotten to ask how come the club let it get this far. I also hope Councillors aren't wasting official time on this.
Yep, like the football banter we have with Festa, Weeds, Wet Spam, Man Ure etc etc. You'll have to remind me when this was? End of 2011 when only Martin Gleeson got banned (as a player) for taking a drug that is legal outside of competition (i.e. not on gameday), or some other time I'm not aware of? I think what he meant was Super League is the second most watched domestic league on Sky Sports. I've definitely read that in several articles from Sky, The RFL and viewing figures type things. I'll have a look for it later on. It was always the plan to go back to Wembley, there's a Rugby League statue going up at Wembley next to the one of Bobby Moore (http://wembleystadium.com/Press/Pre...eroes-to-be-celebrated-in-Wembley-statue.aspx) The cup final traveled around the country whilst Wembley was shut, it was at Twickneham, Murrayfield and Cardiff whilst it was being rebuilt.
It may have been one option, it could even have been the preferred option, but the deal they had to strike with Cardiff meant they didn't get a choice until that deal was over. It can't have been that high in their plans because I understand their contribution to the building of Wembley was next to nothing. That's why the statues weren't up at opening until RL paid. it moved around because Cardiff wanted more money. Sees to be a pattern of RL not wanting to pay their share.
At the time Wembley was being built the RFL had just staged a disaster of a World Cup, posting a massive loss and the sport hardly had two pennies to rub together, so it's not surprising the contribution to a football stadium where one game a year and the odd world cup game 13 years later would be staged wasn't huge. Although looking at the locations of the Cup finals, and the fact Wembley was scheduled to be open in 2007 suggests that there was a three year deal in place at Cardiff for the cup final to coincide with the reopening of Wembley, and before that it went to the cheapest option, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. 2000: Murrayfield 2001: Twickenham 2002: Murrayfield 2003: Cardiff 2004: Cardiff 2005: Cardiff 2006: Twickenham 2007: Wembley
Pretty much what I said. They seem to want to have a continual dig at football, be seen on equal terms on everything except paying their way.
I don't think anyone has had a dig a Wembley have they? I haven't! My only post was that the Cup final is there, which it is.
Perhaps you could have a re-rad of the threads and you'll see it's not so much about rugby eventually going back to Wembley when the other contract ran out (just as I initially claimed) as it is about rugby league not always pulling its weight. I keep pointing out that if there's a valid argument to these current protests rather than the whinge thy sound like, City fans would probably support the claim. At the moment it just sounds like FC trying to plead they don't need to pay the same as other tenants. I notice someone on the FC board has pointed out that this was announced in August last year, so FC will have had a year to sort something and seemingly chose to do nothing. Surely that's an angle to address?
You know that do you? Masquerading as a City fan. I know who paid the bill because I worked on the job. Stick to your mickey mouse sport soft lad.
Busdriver - You really don't like FC do you? Haha Surely FC can't expect equality when they don't put in equal. The KC is starting to show signs of wear and tear, especially the tannoy system (if that's what it's called?) in E3. I can't hear anything. Will FC put in 50% to get it sorted, I doubt it.
There are 2 main arguments here, firstly is that the Allam's are taking out of one wallet and putting it in another, so the charges aren't comparable. The second, and the one that's really motivated people to make the change is that there is no longer any sign of Johnny Whitely in the Johnny Whitley suite, which is ridiculous. Who pays for the photo of the Circle in the Circle restaurant for example. It's daft that City are paying for photos on the wall, just as it's equally daft that FC have to.
I'm sorry but that excuse doesn't work, as a renting tenant your rent money should cover maintanence and the landlord should account for any wear and tear or defective repairs. Only in a situation of direct misuse should the culprits pay for it. For example, if FC fans decided to rip out all the seats and throw them at women and kids (bet this has happened a few times) then they should be held accountable for any repair cost. If the the seat frames went rusty and chairs fell off when people sat on them that should be solely the landlords responsibility to fix. If you rent a house and Say the plumbing is ****ed for example, it's the landlords job to fix it. If you stained all the wallpaper and carpets by being a clumsy **** and spilling things everywhere, that's your fault and your responsibility.
