Well in TM!

Leeds' response. www.therhinos.co.uk/news/14464.php

Leeds' response. www.therhinos.co.uk/news/14464.php

Nothing there that Cas don't already do is there? Didn't we launch a text service a few years back?

Yes but we rarely publicise it. In fact, last home game was the first time since it was launched I've heard it mentioned. There really needs to be more in the programme.

Apparently we are jealous of Leeds and thats why we've pointed the finger at them

I think too many will take this as some Cas fans having a go at Leeds when the whole point of it all is that every club has a problem, it's well known through out RL that every club has a problem yet for some unknown reason Cas are fined very heavily. I don't want to see Leeds fined for the chanting any more than Cas or any other club. I'm glad Leeds have pointed out exactly what they do to stamp out anti social behaviour, seems exactly what Cas do to me. I also hope Cas and Leeds get in contact with each other to make it clear we're not trying to get them in trouble, or any other club either.

It was purely the fact that Leeds where the next Sky game after the fine and so an easy example to prove a point.

You get the feeling if Cas had just mentioned all the things they do we wouldn't have had such a large fine.

I have heard the message for the text number many times at Cas, this is announced at every game but it would be better if it was displayed all around the ground as it's too long to remember.
If as Leeds state they act on all chanting then how does the same chant occur several times during the match, surely the stewards would be at the heart of the trouble. Also as most people know unless you are in the stand at Headingley you cannot hear the tannoy announcements, it must be one of the worst systems in the league.
I like many others have no axe to grind with Leeds, the chanting goes on at every game and every ground, i just believe the punishment we have been given is way over the top. The club have banned 3 supporters and will ban others if they are made known but as Leeds state in their policy it is difficult to locate the offenders just by using cctv, the supporters help is needed but in this society people are loathe to get involved for fear of reprisals.

Leeds have acknowledged the problem, that is the difference.

Whilst I have a fair amount of time for Matterson who seems a pretty savvy bloke, I'm baffled by the "hidden agenda" offerings. Perhaps if he explained this a little further he may gain further credence with it. I see his angle, but he needs to be more specific or he appears dummy throwing.

Clearly, the fine was excessive but critically the clubs response has been poor. Very poor.

The solution is very very obvious, the RFL are heavily funded by Sport England and various groups which do so on the basis of addressing discrimination and encouraging equity and diversity (which is fluffy b0llox but hey ho).

As have we, banned some of the morons.

A retrospective tokenistic response, has been perceived as just that by the powers that be.

The key point is, perhaps TM would be better served being specific with what he means rather than some tenuous bike shed offering that will serve no purpose but to p!ss off his target audience (the RFL) further.

Crisis management clearly isn't your CEO's strongpoint.

What a Nob you really are

What a considered, reasoned response. Brilliant.

Troll. Now you have had fix of ego-soothing/massaging, could you please vacate the vicinity with immediate effect.

T.I.A.

Your point has been addressed multiple times but you persist in trolling this board constantly picking fights for no other reason than to antagonise/patronise.

Edit that into what you want, I really, truly don't care.

Nobody has addressed why TM hasn't clarified the "hidden agenda" comment.

Nobody has addressed that the clubs response has been poor and knee-jerkism of the highest order.

Nobody has grasped the core reason for the RFL fine.

Go away

Excellent debating skills.

"I don't like what I'm reading so I will throw my toys."

It is those ted attitudes that place your club at the level it is. Simple.

Not long now before the amoeba is banned

And your response was



Pure genius whats that phrase " People in glass houses"

I'll get in before the thread is locked and you get a ban

- what does TM have to clarify? What the hidden agenda is? I think it's obvious to all that he is suggesting the RFL want to punish small teams more severely for common offences so as to give them an excuse to eject those clubs from SL at a later date. It's obviously going to cause an uproar if they kick any club out, they need all the justification they can muster to quell the press questions (seeing as relegating a club that doesn't finish in the bottom relegation places is probably unique to RL in this country). Why hasn't he clarified this? Because it's obvious to all, but outwardly saying that would probably land him with a hefty fine.

- I don't believe it has been overly poor. I don't think any other club would have done anything different to what Cas did. I don't think the club expected the fine to be severe as they followed RFL protocol. There are no guidelines for this specific type of chanting because no type of fan chanting has seen a club punished at any point in RFL history (including when racist chanting was rife on the terraces). There was no precedent for the punishment, and no precedent for what the club should do after the event. It is only since the club was told how seriously the RFL would punish them that they've taken further action. How many people have Leeds banned since their fans abused James Graham? How many fans get banned every week for abusing officials? How many fans of other clubs have been banned for abusing Gareth Thomas - which has happened at games after the Cas-Crusaders one? Absolutely none. With hindsight the club could have done more, but there was no way of knowing that the RFL would level this sort of punishment for something that, in essence, they couldn't prevent happening in the first place.

- Well I think everyone has. Cas were fined for not controlling their fans and failing to take steps to prevent it. The quoted reason was, "the club failed to take its best endeavours to prevent or stop any chanting."

icon_surprised.gif3kb6aru

Yes and he hasn't.

icon_surprised.gif3kb6aru

There's never been any supporting evidence to sustain that view, if that was his angle.

icon_surprised.gif3kb6aru

They will only "kick a club out" if they fail to meet the very clear criteria that they are both aware of as a member club and have agreed to abide to.

icon_surprised.gif3kb6aru

Then it's a foundationaless, futile offering.

icon_surprised.gif3kb6aru

Elements of truth but similarly but that they are effectively setting a precedent in in response shouldn't preclude that very response being effective and acknowledging. I also made it clear the fine was originally harsh.

icon_surprised.gif3kb6aru

Agreed. Wasn't my contention.

icon_surprised.gif3kb6aru

That's my very point.



As I've stated, quite what the club were supposed to do at the time to negate the incident is a mystery only the RFL solve. The key point remains the subsequent reaction to the incident and the fine and the "what me guv" answer. Crisis media work isn't difficult, it just takes a little clarity of thought.

The fact also remains that the RFL's fine was largely based on who funds them. Again, nobody seems to grasp this and instead plays the siege mentality sketch when this is actually far from the case.

The club have indicated that they are doing all they can, they have banned people for crimes they previously believed weren't required to be dealt with by banning, but the severity of the RFL's fine has obviously given them the message that this is a bannable offence. The club do the same as everyone else with regards crowd control, so it is undoubtedly unfair for the RFL to pick out Cas. This was what TM was saying in his comments.

As for the 'hidden agenda' part. It's his opinion, and if the media want to take that as newsworthy that's not his problem. He says what he thinks, if you or anyone else disagree that's your opinion. I personally believe there's an element of truth in it - for the reasons given. The RFL have already stated two things - that one Championship club will be promoted and that SL will remain at 14 teams. That means that either they're lying, or they have to come up with reasons to kick a current SL club out. The three main clubs scoring lowest on the criteria are Cas, Wakey and Salford, so the RFL have to make a choice between the three. Stadiums would make the choice easier if some had them and others didn't, but with all three teams looking unlikely to have a new stadium to offer in time, the RFL have to find other ways to separate them. If a heavy fine for a commonplace crime for one club sets them apart from other clubs in the eyes of a barely interested media, that's pretty convenient.

I haven't read your other postings as I'm not fussed with wasting my time over futile bickering, but what do you suggest Cas should have done since they were issued with their fine? They have said that they did all they believed they could at the time, admitted that the chants went on, and have started dishing out punishments to the fans they have identified as chanting the offending comments. Personally, I'm not sure what else they should acknowledge, other than the work they continue to do to make Wheldon Road a family friendly ground.