No it isn't. It's up to the person making the assertion to back it up, you really are making yourself look ridiculous.


Please actually answer the question asked. You brought up the no main sponsor as an issue, you have failed to say why it is an issue. Please say so.


Please actually answer the question asked. You brought up viewing figures as an issue. Yet you don't know what they actually are, or again why they are an issue.



I'm not mixing threads up. You were criticising Bradford for their new sponsor being, amongst other things, a payday lender. Whilst, hypocritically not criticising your own club for having gambling establishments as sponsors. You were being embarrassed and so locked the thread. You can't wriggle out of that one.


No. You provide the evidence, you made the assertion, that's how it works. It should be simple for you to provide a quote or 2 where you make the exact same points when McNamara was appointed as you did just now. Otherwise you'll be thought either an exaggerating fool or a liar. That's what happens when you don't back up your points with any evidence.


I thought you didn't go in for petty insults? Oh no of course you do.
You haven't given any facts except that there is no main sponsor for the World Cup. And have failed to say why that is an issue and why it makes the World Cup a disaster.

Will you actually provide any evidence for the World Cup being a disaster? Because there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Or will you, more likely, wriggle and swerve and not answer questions and make up more unsubstantiated rubbish?
Why not get bored and lock the thread? You know you want to.

Im not sure DG is intelligent enough to realise its the person making the claim that has to supply the evidence to back it up.

I promised myself I wouldn't come on here tonight because I just knew the levels of idiocy that would be all over it. I failed, I logged in...but Christ, I didn't realise just how bad it would be. We lost a game against the current world champions by the narrowest of narrow margins, yet its a disaster, proof of a failed coach etc etc...Goodness me, some people need to take a look at themselves. If 1 or 2 of those "nearly" moments had turned into try's, we would have been planning for a final.....but no, the doom mongers are right. Sound the bell, rugby league in this country is dead.

I'm sorry, but all arguments against Mcbannana for today are irrelevant - that team out there today should have won. New Zealand were there for the taking. The players blew it, not the coach. We had them on the rack first half and our ill discipline cost us big time as did our lack of disrespect for the ball. Words can't describe how gutted i feel at the moment...

I'd like to personally thank Durham Giant for causing me to log in to these boards for the first time in 7 months...even though it's posts like his that have kept me away for so long.

Perhaps when considering the 'disaster' this intellectual giant claims the 2013 RLWC has been, we could look back at the last one held here in 2000. Here's some of the attendances:

All games:
2000 RLWC - average crowd = 8514
2013 RLWC - average crowd = 16394 (OT sell-out for Final factored in)

Semi finals
2000 - at the World famous Reebok and Galpharm stadiums - total 24000
2013 - at the almost unheard of and certainly not too prestigious Wembley Stadium - 65000

Final
2000 - Old Trafford - 44000
2013 - Old Trafford - 75000 sell-out

So just about double the attendance then...what a calamity!

Then of course there's the disaster of England's narrow loss to New Zealand.
2000 - semi final lost to NZ by 43 points
2013 - semi final lost to NZ by 2 points

Clearly this year's semi was a total catastrophe!

I'm not even getting into the Brough/Sinfield arguments. One or two years of consistency does not a legend make. A decade of leadership of the most successful team of the Superleague era does!

There's only one disaster here...and that is that some people don't even know when they're trolling.