Yer Bullseye must have been heartbroken when to quote the T&A.

“Mark Dunning, who has used the Bulls’ dual-registration partnership with Leeds on numerous occasions so far this season, will have James Donaldson, Luis Roberts and Sam Walters at his disposal in the crunch clash against Fax.”

Especially when they were Bradford’s best players on the night winning by just 4 points precisely because of their input.

I still think despite the losses at Widnes, Batley, and London, that Bradford game was easily as bad as those performances and we still managed to get pretty close to them. We beat them easily in the cup and should have beaten them at Odsal yet Bradford went in to this weekend in 3rd. To me just shows the drop of in standards in the league this season.

...and just look at what that one result has done to the league table. DR = Disgrace!

The point was Bullseye said he didn’t think had helped them at all!

Agreed with the effect it can have on results and that’s enough of an argument against it on it’s own and there are plenty other valid reasons as well.

But not with the one club are masters over us.
Have a foot on our throat.
We have to do as we’re told and some our of own players are excluded from training when we take a player on DR claims.

Talking like that actually weakens the argument it’s so obviously ridiculous and if I believed strongly enough for or against something I would at least try and base my conviction on something a bit more solid and factual.

Just out of interest as anyone got any constructive alternatives to DR ?

Do you still have the same thoughts GFB?

You do like to make things up. Show me where i've said our players are excluded from training. Fact!

Yes poor game for us against Bradford and on topic because it wasn’t their team that did it.
Likewise the standard of the League although being competitive it’s more like average vs mediocrity across the board with not many games that will be remembered for long so far that’s for sure.

Okay. Fact.

“Hudd-Shay wrote:
Player comes into the club on dr. That player trains maybe twice, at the expense of an established Fax player, learning moves and calls. The dr player is named in the team for the game. On the eve if the game the dr player's club rings SG up and says 'sorry mate, we've changed our mind, send him back. That is doing as you are told!”

“That player trains twice at the expense of an established Fax player.......”
Not named or plays “TRAINS” at the expense of a Fax player.

And if you can’t write properly and actually meant “plays” instead of “trains” your even contradicting your own big EXPENSE point in the same post because if he’s been recalled then the Fax player he was going to replace will come back in and play anyway so its not at his or anyone’s else expense is it! FACT.

At the expense of doesn't mean instead of. Also, i did mean trains not plays. FACT!

So in this setting what’s does it mean then did this Fax player have to pay for his taxi to the training ground?



How was it then, either at training or on match day when you said the DR player was withdrawn was it at the Fax players expense?

Also I notice no denial mention of the other extreme comments about masters, feet on throat etc because there obviously laughable. FACT.