They won't waste their time with Championship Clubs. Remember those? They sit untidily outside what you think rugby league is - Super League. When the car-park and hamper brigade take over, come down and have a look. It's a bit like Super League only the kits are dirtier and there are no valets in the toilets. Sadly there are no Ken Davy's down here though.

This

I do accept their opinions , unfortunatly they don't seem to accept mine , I've taken it to the ninth degree quite simply because it is a nonsense and my multiple thread ' crusade ' as you put it shows how much of a nonsense it is , if you don't like it , don't contribute , it is after all a stupid pointless thread

I do occasionally get to watch Gateshead do they count



I take my youngest so he can practice counting up to 60 ( usually of points conceded).

More than happy for Quins RL to drop out "fir" the good of the game........but how super would super league be without Ruperts millions?

Of course they accept yours! It was you calling other people liars, [inot[/i the other way around! You've since gone on to try and prove it by asking people to consider a caricature of the original question. The only interpretation of "would you put the good of the game before the good of your club" you've been willing to consider is "would you want your team to drop out of SL so a smaller club could take it's place". As I said earlier, I can put the welfare of my child before the welfare of my wife without shooting my wife in the head. But then why you would feel the need to come up with these scenarios in order to weaken the testimonies of those who said they put the game first is still a mystery. Is it really that important to you to prove your theory that nobody puts the game first?


It shows how hung up on this you are mate. I mean the James Child thread? What's that about? It's as though people saying they'd put the game first has got to you so much that every thread you've been in since has you posting replies that would be better suited to this or the original thread. I mean your first two posts in the original thread saw you calling people liars then uneducated idiots. Am I missing something because I wouldn't have thought that was the sort of response deserved of saying I support the game first and foremost.


Your words, not mine.

I was posting on an I Pad when That mistake was made , tricky little buggers they are , almost like predictive text phones

This was in response to people posting stuff that isnt possible , ie having an uneven number of teams playing an uneven number of matches in a season , if you cannot see that , then you also are an uneducated idiot , it was posted to somebody who thought he was being clever , but wasn't , so am I wrong ? , I'll join in then , lets have the MM weekend on the Moon

Not my problem if on thread after thread there are clear examples of posters putting their club before the game , some of them from posters who argued the opposite only a few hours earlier , so what does that make them ?

About as super as the Championship.

aaah, so it all becomes clear now. When people said they would put the good of the game before the good of their club, you thought that meant they would always be happy to see their club damaged if there was any benefit to the wider game whatsoever.

Which is a naive, verging on idiotic standpoint. It forgets that the constituent clubs are the ones which make up the game, and damaging them damages the game, So any damage to them in the name of expansion has to not only benefit the expansion sides (and lets be honest, the bee in your pretty little bonnet is expansion, you wont be too upset to see Wigan damaged to benefit the championships) but benefit the expansion sides by a greater amount than the damage to the heartland sides.

Because of your pathetic pettiness you have forgotten half of the argument. It isnt are would you see your club damaged(and its nice to see you having to start a whole new thread having been conclusively proven wrong on the other btw) its would you see your club damaged, [ufor the good of the game [/u All your nonsense examples ignore this integral part of the question, because they arent good for the game.

You have then gone on to some weird random journey to prove to everyone that all rule breaking is cheating and to the detriment of the game. But only you seem to think this, everyone else seems to understand that it is part of the tactics, part of the chessmatch, a big part of the game.

This thread and the other one came about because somebody posted that they would be happy for Salford to replace S Mcrae with Basil , for the ' good of the game ' , I suggested that isnt how it works

Now if you want to argue that point , away you go ? , and if that is somehow about ' expansion ' , once again , away you go ?

NO YOU ARE NOT SPARTACUS I AM

yet your constant bleating and random examples have only included dropping sides for expansion sides, and you have needed to change the argument......again.

You could just accept that people would be happy, that if on balance between the damage done and benefits received the game was up, they would see their club lose out, they arent liars, there are just a huge wide range of circumstances and we are talking in general terms.

Do i believe you can excuse murder. On the whole, no

Do i believe you can excuse the murder of a man running at you with a knife shouting he is going to kill you? probably so

Would i see my club damaged for the good of the game? yes

Would i see my club put out of business and a smaller, less well managed club with less potential put in SL in its place because starbug pretends this is for the good of the game? no.

I can perfectly understand why a fan could see a transient member of the coaching staff moving on to a higher level being the best for all concerned and as such the right course of action to take. You would have to be particularly stupid to not do so.

So given that damaging clubs damages the game and:



What circumstance will damage clubs but not the game? and what is good for clubs but not the game? and can everyone's opinion now be summarily dismissed?



Kippers for tea again?

Nobody has suggested 'damaging' clubs other than Starbug, because he has some sort of mistaken belief that forward progress must mean existing clubs will suffer.

the relegation of Wakefield and promotion of Widnes will likely damage Wakefield but heavily strengthen Widnes. The game as a whole will gain more from the gain of Widnes than it loses from the loss of Wakefield.

Nobody is suggesting a deliberate damaging of clubs.

Its pretty obvious and im sure you would have understood had you not been so desperate to rescue your damsel in distress.

Oh so you've come out as another flat earth, backward looking P & R merchant.

a good example, if as usual a little confused (i have never mentioned P&R in the context of automatic P&R simply that one club will be promoted at the end of this year and one relegated)

The (massive) benefits to the game as a whole of getting rid of P&R outweigh the (minimal) damage done to a small minority of clubs by it.

If you're arguing that P & R can result in a net benefit to the game for one particular year you cannot also argue that P & R in [uany[/u other year is automatically detrimental to the game.

Unless of course you are the Kipperman!

If done through the franchise system then yes. Though im not sure where you think I have said anything different. I havent anywhere argued that there is anything specific about this year which makes it better for the franchise decisions than any other year (other than of course, this was the year that it was decided to do it)

Why did you think I had said there was something specific about this year which made promoting and relegating a club better than any other year?

You wouldnt be deliberately trying to conflate automatic promotion and relegation through league position and promoting and relegating a team through the franchise system in an attempt to distract people from your damsels nonsense would you Bill?

I've just checked all my posts on this thread and not once have I mentioned or suggested ' expansion ' or ' heartland ' or anything to make anybody think that I was suggesting any club replacing any other club

You really need to stop assuming you are reading what is not actually there

As for us losing our coach to a supposed better club then surely for anybody , fan or club official , to be ' happy ' for that to happen isn't what you have suggested ambitious clubs would do , is it ?

On this thread no, but then you arent even pretending that this is the only thread you have kept up this pathetic argument.


But realistically it is better if they move on, realistically they are going to move on if they are good enough. Your still pretending you are a 'realist' arent you?

Better for who ?

For everyone.