Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Thu May 12, 2011 8:04 pm  

Shark J wrote:

Yeah, that's just in my stand

£99-£700 is the range.

Not sure really. I've gotten my hopes up slightly in the past few days. I watched Worcester and Cornish Pirates last night and it was dire. I don't think Worcester will worry anybody too much if they come up.

Steve Diamond confirmed we're looking to move to Barton. What are the Salford fans like on the whole? I'm pretty excited if it comes off and over on their forum they seem fairly positive about a possible share. I can't be doing with another bitter rivalry though like Stockport.

Surely the Worcester squad next season would be a world away from the one currently trying to get past Penzance.

I'd imagine that the Salford boys and girls will be fine as long as you remember who's stadium it is.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Thu May 12, 2011 8:40 pm  

What, our stadium?

Not sure what's gonna be going on really. I'd imagine that we'd respect Salford's wishes and that they've planned this for many years but we'd prefer a say somewhere along the line. As I said on our own board - I'm excited at the prospect of a new stadium with good facilities, standing areas, COVERED stands all round. But if we were to ground share forever then I would want it to feel like it's ours. Not sure how I'd feel about being in a stadium forever with Salford City Reds all over it, red seats, Salford spelt out on the seats.

Now that's not trying to get anybody annoyed. But you can appreciate that although Stockport is home, it has always felt like a temporary home. I wonder how much the minimum ground requirements have stopped us moving to our own ground in the past. Kennedy has said for a long time that if we could guarantee an average crowd of 15,000 he would get us a new stadium, but of course now we're in a state where that's a million miles off. But with all the tension with Stockport I imagine the best solution would have been to get us a basic little ground, with the room for expansion. The ground requirements are daft and it's preventing the smaller teams from being able to develop and compete. So what if Cornish Pirates ground only holds 3000? It's not Football. They're hardly going to stampede or anything. Rugby fans are used to traditional grounds, most don't want all seater stadiums with no character.

And while you're all talking about the no relegation thing - please don't think it's a rip off of League. I mean, of course it's going to be compared to it. But in terms of Rugby, the Premiership is one of few leagues that still has promotion and relegation.

I do feel it's time to adapt to the league franchise style - but only if it helps the lower divisions. It's no good ring fencing it all off and then in 3 years time the gulf being even bigger. And that's the only negative for Super League for me now. I'm not the biggest fan of League, but in the games I do watch the skill level and speed seems to have gone up so much. The gulf between the top 2 flights seems to be ridiculously big and I think The Challenge Cup results show that. As a lot of people like to point out, effectively there are only 14 competing Rugby Union sides in England anyway. Worcester and Bristol being the other 2 outside of the top flight. But then the last season has shown just how damaging the modern game can be with Bristol being whipping boys and finishing 8th.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Thu May 12, 2011 8:43 pm  

cjhatesunion wrote:

RL fans on the whole are decent people.

I'm sure they are. I was just curious as to what their reputation is like. If it's one of the more hostile grounds or if it has a traditional feel to it. I've nothing against Salford, but obviously, growing up in South Manchester I'm aware of Salford and like my home town of Wythenshawe it has a bad reputation. The last thing I would want is if the 3,000 or so die hard Reds fans were Salford hard nuts who hated Union!

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Thu May 12, 2011 8:50 pm  

Haven't got time to reply properly now but on the Challenge Cup point there were some close calls with cracking performances by the Championship teams.

St Helens 52 Sheffield 26
Leigh 16 Catalan Dragons 22
Halifax 34 Bradford 46
Batley 18 Huddersfield 28

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Fri May 13, 2011 12:02 pm  

An absolute shambles. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/ma ... twickenham

An absolute shambles. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/ma ... twickenham

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Fri May 13, 2011 1:18 pm  

Great news. Was it Jeff Probyn who said a monkey could have trained the England team to win the WC? Woodward showed his abilities with the Lions squad.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Fri May 13, 2011 3:13 pm  

And at the bottom of that page.

Clive Woodward not the right man for England, says Jeff Probyn

25 Apr 2011

Jeff Probyn has warned the Rugby Football Union against bringing Sir Clive Woodward back to the fold

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Fri May 13, 2011 5:35 pm  

dids858 wrote:

And at the bottom of that page.

Clive Woodward not the right man for England, says Jeff Probyn

25 Apr 2011

Jeff Probyn has warned the Rugby Football Union against bringing Sir Clive Woodward back to the fold

Sir Clive Woodward. Show some respect.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Sun May 15, 2011 1:28 am  

Anyone seen that bit of biff between Tuilagi and Chris Ashton. Pathetic refereeing, but why the hell does Ashton just stand there and take it, and not throw one back after the first punch?

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Sun May 15, 2011 6:47 am  

goochie124 wrote:

Anyone seen that bit of biff between Tuilagi and Chris Ashton. Pathetic refereeing, but why the hell does Ashton just stand there and take it, and not throw one back after the first punch?

Maybe cos he doesn't know what day it is.

Yet to see anyone comment on the other 79 minutes 45 seconds. The game itself must have been very poor viewing.