so why cant you use it the correct context then?

you werent supposed to

Here's the rest that you dont want to comment on

A general statement is one that makes an absolute about a group of things or people, such as:
All Welsmen like Rugby Union and hate Rugby League

All Widnes fans on these boards are Anti-expansionists.

or

Computers are evil

Commenting on one persons opinion, based solely their argument is not a generalisation.




Strong amateur areas need strong local pro/semi-pro clubs nearby. This is what helps create interest and aids recruitment. This is why the Chester Gladiators are happy about the Crusaders moving to Wrexham.

Without the strong local pro/semi-pro clubs nearby, the amateur scene will be adversely affected.

No, you are wrong here, read what he has put again. There is a level Hull KR need to reach to meet the outgoings there model plans for. The attendances and support base cannot reach this level without investment that the current owners cant/wont make-they make it clear it needs to come from elsewhere, this clearly isnt sustainable
but not it seems the board, who would question their involvement should the necessary investment in the stadia wasnt forthcoming from an outside. And also there has been work done since promotion and work ongoing, this isnt ready made is it
but it wasnt in place prior to them coming into SL was it. And Hull KR did get dispensation on overseas players, it clearly wasnt ready made was it
i was actually drawing a comparison between where HKR were and where they are now, but you missed that
I would have thought every Chairman thinks he is bringing in a good coach when they employ them. They havent seemed to forecast that well, hence them not having a clear plan of getting to 10k which they believe is the level they need to get to
exactly, it wasnt the fact Crusaders were an expansion club, nor the timing of their acceptance, it was the execution once they got to SL. But this doesnt affect expansion or whether Wales should have an SL club, simply that as good as Samuels plans/bids and everything else may have been, it wasnt executed very well.

you can look at it two ways that Crusaders were obviously going to be poor, that the bid was poor or the plans were poor and it was silly to even look at them, or the more obvious way of seeing it, Crusaders had done very very well up to the bid procedure, there bids and plans were good and the benefits of success were fantastic, however when it came to executing this they didnt do something very very difficult particularly well.

Do i think improvements could have been to the process? yes
Do i think that Crusaders could have done things better? yes
Do i think it was wrong to put them in? No.

Things will go wrong in expanding the game, it wont all be plain sailing, and some clubs will need to make huge changes and will face huge challenges and some times we wont succeed. But it doesnt mean we dont take the risk when an opportunity arises, especially one that up until that point was a roaring success

you didnt base it solely on my argument though did you, or else you wouldnt have brought in the fact i am a fan of a big club, which is an even bigger generalisation.

and i havent said all Widnes fans on these boards are Anti-expansionist, i quite clearly said the opposite


well then you will understand the need for us to have more local pro/semi-pro clubs in more areas, rather than having them all in one small part of the country. Then we can also have a strong amateur game all over the country, much more players to choose from, a much better sport played at a higher level and a better national side

thats your opinion, fine, its just not really relevant to my point

which was you didnt want Toulouse in the championships, you agree you dont. There isnt much further to go

Smokey - do you do after dinner speeches? Basically i've got to fill in a six hour event with a guest speaker. Ken Dodd is unavailable. Are you free?

You’ve not quite got the hang of this generalisation word have you?




You imply, in practically every thread on expansion, that Widnes fans cannot be trusted when commenting on expansion clubs, by virtue of the fact they are Widnes fans, including in this thread.



Of course, but that works both ways doesn’t it?

We need to keep the clubs we have strong, just in case these new clubs fail, so we do not damage the amateur scene we already have. Otherwise RL will actually shrink in popularity, and the game ends up being played by less and less people.

The point being there was only me that didn't want them , but you suggested there were many others , and that I hadn't changed my opinion , when you were suggesting there were many others who had , when in truth there were not

so basically YOU WERE WRONG

AGAIN

Could he make himself look any sadder? Does he ever wonder why so many people disagree with him?

Anyway like I said previously his style of arguing is to ignore other peoples arguments, then talk about some minor technicality and then carry on until the other person gives up which can be days or weeks.

For instance you think 2 + 2 = 4 and Smokey thinks it equals 5, you show him exactly how it equals 4 and he still refuses to accept it. He then starts making out like + doesn't necessarily mean adding the number that comes after it but could mean adding whatever number you want to it. He then carries on until you give up and goes away thinking he has won.

I'll let him think that his memory is better than actual evidence because I can't be bothered arguing with him.

Exactly what he just attempted with me , he would normally dissect the whole post , instead he picked up on the ' Apology ' bit and left it there , ignoring the points that proved him wrong

Till I reminded him

That would be a budget then, nothing to with with the actual "model". The club is investing in an extension to the East Stand (again).



Whether the board think that Craven Park needs extensive work to maximise attendance and whether Craven Park meets the RFL standard for SL are two completely different things. I would suggest that since Hull KR do actually play in the SL then Craven Park has been deemed suitable by the RFL, you seem to think not!



Have Hull HR at any time breached the RFL's rules regarding overseas player quotas? No, I thought not.



But you cannot bring yourself to admit it was good business, just that Hull KR are fortunate to have a good coach, hmmm, funny that. They have forecast very well, they knew it would cost and were prepared to spend. It seems that you discredit Hull KR for planning ahead and facing harsh realities, but poor old Samuels was just unlucky eh?



No what this is, is the forecasts were so poor (or if you prefer the "business model" was so poor) and Samuels commitment so little that the house of cards was blown down after one year in SL.



Yes, it was all pie in the sky wasn't it?



You can ask yourself all the questions you like. The bottom line is the Crusaders business plan was pie in the sky, Samuels had no commitment and the RFL were either conned or (since they paid for bids to be professionally audited) so desperate for the Crusaders to be in SL that the whole franchising process was so much bunkum.



Yes there is plenty of evidence of things going wrong expanding the game. It makes you wonder why the same mistakes get made time and time again. As you are so fond of pointing out, success in the National Leagues has no relevance to success in SL. If this were Widnes or Leigh we were talking about you would use that as an argument against inclusion to SL.

Risk taking is part and parcel of business, it's usually a good idea to minimise the risk though for such a gamble to pay off.

What do you base this comment on ?

That guy can chat for freakin hours!
But I have a feeling Smokey could beat him...

An excellent analogy

There were quotes from two other people

unless they are also you, then it wasnt only you was it

its the level at which they company/product matures, its the payback level, its the level the clubs was intended to reach when the investment was made

i havent said anything at all about whether craven park is acceptable for SL, go read it again. I said your chairman has said the stadium in its current form, with its current capacity isnt enough to keep Hull KR at the level they need to be. I at no stage mentioned its acceptability to SL

have I said they did? No, I thought not.

Hull KR however did receive dispensation in the amount of overseas players they were allowed, this is because they werent a ready-made SL club!
Yes, Hull KR were fortunate to have a manager who kept them in SL first of all. This was a very big challenge and one they could have failed very easily. They were lucky to have investors willing to bail them out from large unsustainable losses. They were lucky to have a good manager and a board willing to invest in them, This im sure any normal HKR fan would admit was true. And any normal person would also not somehow see it as a criticism of Morgan, Crossland or Hudgell. Hull KR have executed well. Good on them. The point i was making was that take away Crossland/Hudgell (whoever is actually picking up these rising debts) and there is nothing intrinsic in Hull KR that makes them a better bet. Right now they are relying on their owners to keep them afloat, and even they admit they need outside investment to move on from there. This isnt a ready made SL club
which is exactly the same thing. Why you were desperate to put a more negative tint on it I don't know.


No,

It just didnt work

your wrong, only if you were working from your on prejudices. There was always a chance a club could fail, whichever format we took. Clubs failed under p+r, clubs failed both before and after Salary Capping.


putting the success/failure of a club down to the time-frame they took to get into SL is stupidly niave. It is one, very small part of a very big and complex package

thats quite funny that, considering the post you point it out in, ignored points that proved you wrong

Yes there was , one of them I pointed out to you was from Pepe , were he pointed out that it was Toulouse's relegation exemption that he was unhappy with , not their inclusion

Sooooooo

are we now accepting that you and one other person isnt just you?

, and one other

So hardly masses of ' flat cappers ' showing displeasure

Come on smokey give us an answer to this one ?



What do you base this comment on ?

lol at the flatcappers all trying to gang up on smokey

bit like dogs trying to hump someones leg for attention

i never said i was going to go and collate every negative quote regarding Toulouse's inclusion. I just simply showed that it wasnt all welcoming, by your admission there are three posts there, whats your issue? do you just want more negative posts? there is a whole archive of it back to february if you want to find it