Did anyone spot Harold Heyes' (from Wigan) letter in the League Express this week?

I'm not sure how to reproduce this letter on here,but OMG it's well worth a read,Surely it has to be a wind up,But if its not then he ought to stop sniffing the glue



If anyone can put it on here then please do

Harold is quite well known at the Wigan shareholders meetings for "voicing his opinions"

I'll leave it at that.

There are plenty like this at All Clubs! some letters become like children in a school yard!

Yeh the letters page should always be treated with caution. It's a good pool for keeping an eye on the crazies.

Let's see the letter or can someone post what it's about.

Basically he was proposing the most stupid idea known to man.

He wants every team to have 13 on-field players, 4 subs and 2 'reserve' players.

If a player gets sent off, the team can then use one of the 'reserve' players. i.e. always having 17 players vs 17 players.

This was not a joke. He was deadly serious.

Sounds great. I want to see that

The 2014 grand final between Wigan and St Helens was a disappointment for Wigan supporters who were denied the privilege of watching a game played by 26 players; we only had 25.
The supporters were totally ignored when Flower was sent off and realised that Wigan had no chance after that. I paid top dollar to watch this game yet was cheated by the rules of rugby league. It is time the supporters were put first as these are the ones who suffer the most and without them we would have no game.We need to study the rules to make them fairer in this day and age. To ignore this problem could be catastrophic to the attendances at our games. After another sending off after a wigan v saints game in 2008 I wrote to the RFL to suggest a remedy to this problem. I wrote that teams should have 4 subs and 2 reserves. In case of a sending off one of the reserves would take his place. I put this idea forward to eliminate any unfairness when a player is sent off. The dismissed player would then be the only one punished rather than the rest of the team and the spectators. Which would be good for the game.

Harold Heyes- Wigan.

When I first saw this I was convinced it was a wind up then I thought , well after all he is a wiginer.

I think this guy doesn't seem to understand why the player leaves the field after assaulting another player. We might as well just scrap all sendings off as well under his idiotic idea.

I'd love to see the RFL faces when they read that letter.

I'd like to know at what point he thinks the fans should stop being considered about player welfare.

Maybe when the chariots and the tridants are used or would harold Heyes, be there with his thumb down, bring on the next gladiator.

We need Harold to join the pies forum. That would be very very entertaining

it would indeed, but from experience of his "performances" at the shareholders meetings I would almost guarantee his popsts would be pages long. I remember some great "debates" with Wigan chairmen over the years.

I can imagine it

Harold must be in his mid to late 70's now, but he was a very good and articulate debater.

"Mr. chairman" and so it began. Uncle Mo was very tolerant of him. Lenegan at times got very frustrated. Whelan didn't know what to make of him, I don't think he was used to people standing up to him Comedy gold.

His idea of replacing a player sent off is utter madness.

It's outstandingly bonkers! Imagine the tactics teams would employ with rules like those! Employ a couple of local nutters from an amateur club, get them to 'takeout' the opposition's best players and then replace your nutters with proper players.

They're a bit like our tactics now minus the new rule suggested (I thought I'd get that in first).

Isn't that the Wigan way ?

It must be a take.

This isn't a new idea.
It did the rounds 10-12 years ago with John Kear as the main proponent of it.
I think it came about due to teams losing games after having a man sent off when later it was found not to be a sending off offence.

I think it got discussed when the "On Report" system kicked in, there was going to be a status where the probabality should have been a red card but not 100% certain, so the suggestion was to remove the "guilty" player from the game but to replace the player by one of the subs. But I think they started to use the video ref a bit more.