Ofcourse - this being the absolute ideal outcome for a Hudds fan.

Quote ="Ceebeejames"The wearing of principle kit at home is not cast in stone. The RFL can approve different options. See below for example, a sky game: www.superleague.co.uk/video/player.php?id=21204 Here Cas, at home, are playing in their (drum roll) ....alternate kit! i am told this was because this kit had just arrived and Cas wanted to 'promote it'. The Cas club asked the Giants if they would be kind enough to wear their principle kit for this game. The Giants kindly agreed and this was approved and confirmed by the RFL. The Giants agreed to wearing the alternate kit to help Cas. Again I am told they did so on the proviso that the kits would be 'reversed' for the Giants home game. The giants MD says he has the paperwork from the RFL confirming the kit option for sunday. so either: - The RFL failed to send the paperwork to Cas [RFL at fault - RFL did send the correct paperwork to Cas but Cas did not read it [Cas at fault Either way the Giants acted correctly.'" Either way, you were misinformed. Hudds should have been wearing their home kit: www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... %20FEB.xls

Quote ="Ceebeejames"The wearing of principle kit at home is not cast in stone. The RFL can approve different options. See below for example, a sky game: www.superleague.co.uk/video/player.php?id=21204 Here Cas, at home, are playing in their (drum roll) ....alternate kit! i am told this was because this kit had just arrived and Cas wanted to 'promote it'. The Cas club asked the Giants if they would be kind enough to wear their principle kit for this game. The Giants kindly agreed and this was approved and confirmed by the RFL. The Giants agreed to wearing the alternate kit to help Cas. Again I am told they did so on the proviso that the kits would be 'reversed' for the Giants home game. The giants MD says he has the paperwork from the RFL confirming the kit option for sunday. so either: - The RFL failed to send the paperwork to Cas [RFL at fault - RFL did send the correct paperwork to Cas but Cas did not read it [Cas at fault Either way the Giants acted correctly.'" Either way, you were misinformed. Hudds should have been wearing their home kit: www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... %20FEB.xls

Quote ="getdownmonkeyman"Either way, you were misinformed. Hudds should have been wearing their home kit: www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... %20FEB.xls'" Interesting!

Quote ="getdownmonkeyman"Either way, you were misinformed. Hudds should have been wearing their home kit: www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... %20FEB.xls'" Interesting!

Quote ="getdownmonkeyman"Either way, you were misinformed. Hudds should have been wearing their home kit: www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... %20FEB.xls'" Clubs are expected to act upon the official documents they receive from the RFL, such as the match officials, and not what John Ledger and the media department churn out. For example the directive has the Giants playing Catalans on the 19th June. This was moved weeks ago to the 18th for a Sky game. Now should the Giants go with this document or the official paperwork?

Quote ="getdownmonkeyman"Either way, you were misinformed. Hudds should have been wearing their home kit: www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... %20FEB.xls'" Clubs are expected to act upon the official documents they receive from the RFL, such as the match officials, and not what John Ledger and the media department churn out. For example the directive has the Giants playing Catalans on the 19th June. This was moved weeks ago to the 18th for a Sky game. Now should the Giants go with this document or the official paperwork?

Silly mistake from the Giants,just hope they make another in the league!

Quote ="getdownmonkeyman"Either way, you were misinformed. Hudds should have been wearing their home kit: www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... %20FEB.xls'" If you NOW look at the kit Directive on the RFL website is says Huddersfield Giants ALTERNATIVE and Castleford Tigers PRINCIPAL www.therfl.co.uk/referee/kit_directives

Quote ="getdownmonkeyman"Either way, you were misinformed. Hudds should have been wearing their home kit: www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... %20FEB.xls'" If you NOW look at the kit Directive on the RFL website is says Huddersfield Giants ALTERNATIVE and Castleford Tigers PRINCIPAL www.therfl.co.uk/referee/kit_directives

Think there just trying to cover up a big fault now and push it under the door mat.

Quote ="WireWire"If you NOW look at the kit Directive on the RFL website is says Huddersfield Giants ALTERNATIVE and Castleford Tigers PRINCIPAL www.therfl.co.uk/referee/kit_directives'" Is this a conspiracy to discredit Cas or are the RFL covering their tracks for their own faux pas........

Quote ="WireWire"If you NOW look at the kit Directive on the RFL website is says Huddersfield Giants ALTERNATIVE and Castleford Tigers PRINCIPAL www.therfl.co.uk/referee/kit_directives'" Is this a conspiracy to discredit Cas or are the RFL covering their tracks for their own faux pas........

Exactly my point!

The updated web site kit directive now appears in line with the one clubs received from the RFL in [umid May[/u. so now the fault lies with either:

- Cas (at least partly at fault for not taking both kits to an away game)

- the Cas ISP for not transfering the update

Quote ="getdownmonkeyman"Either way, you were misinformed. Hudds should have been wearing their home kit: www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... %20FEB.xls'" WRONG MONKEYFACE RFL directive says Giants ALTERNATIVE, CAS PRINCIPLE. CAS fault. www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... al%202.xls

Quote ="getdownmonkeyman"Either way, you were misinformed. Hudds should have been wearing their home kit: www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... %20FEB.xls'" WRONG MONKEYFACE RFL directive says Giants ALTERNATIVE, CAS PRINCIPLE. CAS fault. www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... al%202.xls

Quote ="Durham Giant"WRONG MONKEYFACE RFL directive says Giants ALTERNATIVE, CAS PRINCIPLE. CAS fault. www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... al%202.xls'" Get out of here. You're way off the pace.

Quote ="Durham Giant"WRONG MONKEYFACE RFL directive says Giants ALTERNATIVE, CAS PRINCIPLE. CAS fault. www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... al%202.xls'" Get out of here. You're way off the pace.

I will take that as an admission you were wrong

Based on the information available at the time, my findings correlated with my earlier assertion.

Errors corrected.

Whilst it pains me to say it ( as good as you are and i would put you above us) i think Wigan are better equipped to win the GF than either of us. When they get their missing players back ( especially HOCK who i rate very highly ) they are likely to finish stronger than both of us.

Whilst i would like to table to be
1 Giants
2 Wire
3 Goons
or as an alternative

1 Wire
2 Giants
3 Goons

I think Wigan will win it

Yorkshire clubs embarrassing the sport. Typical that both clubs are blaiming each other to avoid their blushes. Punish them both with a 22 point deduction.



On a more serious note, If I was a shirt sponsor of Castelford I would be seriously unhappy at the loss of media exposure yesterday evening.

Take it up with the RFL. I'm not the one amending info.

You were peddling it though



Bit quick to jump on the bandwagon Mr. Getdown

I was providing documentary evidence to conclude an ambiguity.

My moral compass is always pointing straight and true.

I'll bare that in mind

totally wrong

it was agreed in february when cas asked to wear their new away kit to "showcase" it on the first televised game of the weekly rounds, we agreed and so it was agreed that on the return fixture cas would wear their principle kit.so either the RFL or castleford or both forgot or chose to ignore this.
no blame whatsoever on huddersfields part.

Not sure if this has already been posted, but this is quite funny as a reaction to the kit farce: [iHuddersfield Castleford kit farce - Probiz/Hitler reaction [/i

video site

=#FF0000Sorry as funny as that is, it's copyrighted material so no direct links. Horatio Yed

Hahaha thats class

You're not at Durham University are you?