If the rfl back salford and allow them to call off the game it would make our sport look more amateur!

also as a club, fc should imo claim for loss of income form salford and the rfl, ok not expecting salford fans to travel on numbers, (200 max), but companies who have paid for corporate boxes and cant arrange due to other commitments

would harris, marwan and co be willing NOT to play chase, wellar and paterson in the re-arranged fixture!? i highly doubt it!

Having been to a number of Salford home games this season I've come to the conclusion that they either purposefully understate the attendances or just guess, as the ticket office doesn't seem organised at the best of times! The figure stated definitely doesn't match the number there, the Wigan game being the best example!

As for the team it's very disappointing to see how they've gone from beating a good Wigan to free fall in the space of 2 weeks. Honestly think the league would be better off with a strong Salford side

you could say that about any club struggling at the bottom!

Salford have chosen to spend their salary cap on a small number of highly paid players rather than depth. They can't then complain when the lack of depth in their squad causes a problem.

Why don't they use " dual registration" players from the championship or championship 1?

Isn't that how the system is supposed to work, or as most suspect, it's a one way street.

The whole thing is a farce whichever way you look at it.

[urlhttp://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/salford-plea-match-call-goes-9131700[/url

Salford have taken it to the RFL

I see a threat coming on and if they back down to this, the sport becomes a joke

Maybe if Salford had looked at fitness training in pre-season rather than a lot of contact & bulking up then this might not have occurred all these knocks & injuries....

Yawn. Easy cliches

14 out yesterday, 3 off injured in the game, 2 more injured and carried on playing and we lost to you by 2 points. Good job we've got no strength in depth or we would have creamed you

I agree. Had you won yesterday I would have had no complaints.
I'd suggest that it was indeed our strength in depth that pulled us through, remember we had a number of first team players absent too.
I can't help thinking that by requesting a postponement you are almost giving the players available the message that you have no confidence in them, when it would be better to praise their effort at the weekend and get them playing to prove a point?

You had 14 missing too then did you? If we'd had a max of 8 out (inc one we'd just signed and who'd never played for us) then we wouldn't have been moaning cos that happens

I personally hope that either the R.F.L. agrees to Salford’s request or a rag-tag seventeen actually beats Hull.

Either way it will give me hours of amusement.

The V.T would go into meltdown if it was the former, or the Hull board would implode with various suggestions of how to put to death the men in charge, if the latter occurred .

No. However, this was in no small part to having no players suspended as opposed to your 4 which didn't help matters.
Therefore, through injury you were missing a further 8 (14 is the number of players you now have unavailable - it was 12 yesterday!).
We were missing Dorn, Carney, Webster, Solomona, Cook, McMeekan and Mariano through injury. At the start of the game this was one less player missing through injury than yourselves.