Unfortunately it appears to be in decline as a top research university. It is a bad sign that their VC sees them more as a regional university (as opposed to a centre for international excellence).

But even Leeds university (proper) is having serious problems at the moment as they try and cut staff across the board.

I'm re-assured by the Tories plan for Universities to rely on charitable donations for funding. No really.

Link?

I don't have a clue mate just winding up the rhinos fan.

Most universities are trying extra hard to wring extra money out of alumni anyway, so I can't see this idea replacing the need for central funding any time soon. It may work for Oxbridge and the Ivy League schools in the States but most graduates here either don't earn enough or more likely don't see the point in handing over money to their former universities.

Quote ="Adeybull"Link?'" www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... -recession Penultimate para.

Quote ="Adeybull"Link?'" www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... -recession Penultimate para.

Exactly. It smacks of someone/s with no comprehension of how Universities other than Oxbridge operate or survive. Even Leeds, a top world 100 university, has a massive operation dedicated to just that already.

Thanks. I remember reading that article online now, and being struck by how uncharacteristically-hard on Labour it was.

Leaving aside the political leanings of the Grauniad, and that much of their readership is engaged in the education sector (doubtless the Torygraph, Wail or Excess would have a different take on it), the wording is:

"The Tory spokesman on higher education, David Willetts, said he could not promise to reverse the cuts if his party was in power. A Conservative government would encourage universities to reduce overheads by relying more on charitable donations, he said.".

Interesting... I read those comments as saying that the Tories would almost certainly (what "could not promise to reverse..." really means) leave the cuts by Labour intact - i.e no difference in substance between the two parties' approaches (again...). But with hints maybe of a more benign (tax) regime to encourage donations and legacies from wealthy benefactors, maybe like in the US, to help plug the funding gap that both parties would seem to be signed up to?

Or I may be crediting a politician with too much joined-up thinking...?

A concern over encouraging donations and legacies from wealthy benefactors would surely have to be that - as in the US with the Ivy league - it would likely be the "top" universities though that would benefit disproportionately?

Well you're failing badly shag.

Good for you.

...anywaaaaaay, anyone sane who wishes to continue the discussion....

I've been thinking a bit more about the Bulls fans' indignation.

How much tax payers' money was given to the Bulls by Bradford Council when they moved back to Odsal from Valley Parade so the Council could buy themselves out of their obligations under the lease, like, you know, Carnegie have bought themselves out of the obligations from their ownership of the RU Club?

Do you iron creases in your jeans?

I don't wear Denim, I only wear Corduroy

Good choice especially in this weather. Looks smart if you want it to but also looks casual.

I like to look dapper.

Nice.

Hmmmmmmmm. Niiiiiice.

A corduroy blazer with a white tshirt and jeans would look quite good actually.

Shows how out of touch you are.

gary hetherington is a genius,he's turned the biggest bridesmaids ever to grace rl,and with a £5 million debt to boot into sl's best side ever, into a club that was described by russell crowe as the best run rl club in the world!

didnt he have a teensy weensy bit of help from paul caddick?

hetherington has turned our club around from losers on and off the pitch into winners and he has done this within the strict sl guidlines,the fact that mr caddick appointed him in the first place merely emphasises my point further

You are Alan Partridge & I claim my £5.

Hmmm I don't recognise Leeds RLFC in ANY of that statement

4+2+3 > 4+1+2

But...

a) The World Club Challenge isn't a serious tournament;

b) For those nine or so years when the Challenge Cup was disgracefully misplaced at the start of the season, winning the Challenge Cup did not signify anything about a team and it must be dismissed as a pre-season comp, along the lines of the Lazenby Cup or the Wigan Sevens;

c) I believe the 1996 and 1997 champions were Wigan - there was a slight historical anomaly in that for a brief period the team taking out the league leaders title was erroneously awarded the Super League trophy, but the mere presentation of that trophy does not in reality reflect anything in the wider Rugby League scheme of things and most commentators now accept that Wigan, by winning the Final at Old Trafford, were worthy champions.

In which case, 3 < 4.