tad rhino wrote:
it wasn't GH who called him a liar. it was Chalmers and EVERY other non sl club.
Isn't that the point? Every other NON SL club. The turkeys not voting for Christmas. There's a surprise!
Just on the article itself: don't you think that using an article with clear vested interest as some sort of yardstick to 'prove' something is a bit flawed? To take a couple random points from it: he says the NRL only has one governing body whilst failing to contextualise this by also pointing out that the NRL also only has one division. In other words the one governing body focuses on the top tier. That is what the new system is trying to bring in. If there were no championship sides there would be no need to have a separate governing body.
He also claims that Lenagan is claiming opinion as fact then goes on to do exactly the same. Does anyone on here actually believe the spin that the RFL is doing a good job? He mentions the increased TV deal yet fails to mention that the RFL undersold it by allowing Sky to get into a position where the could make a 'take it or leave it' deal knowing we didn't have any other options. Do you think Sky offered top dollar out of the goodness of their heart in that situation? That's before we even get to the debacle of the Stobart sponsorship!
I could take that article apart line by line but, in truth, so could anyone else with even a modicum of intelligence. The only people who would point to that article as having any semblance of balance or credibility are those with a vested interest or those who think that to keep doing the same thing whilst expecting a different result is the right way to go. And we all know what that is the definition of!
