From the Torygraph www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... gated.html

From the Torygraph www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... gated.html

As we all know, the press in the UK traditionally tends to really slate RL at every oppurtunity. Indeed it's often the only way we ever make it into some papers. How great a time is it for RL though when the Gareth Hock fiasco doesn't even really get a mention due to the other lot 'imploding.'
Lovin' it!

Then there was that story over the weekend of 21 men in Wales running an occupied tent over with a lawn-roller after a union game

RL's not really getting off scott free, [url=http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/478931/FORMER-Sale-boss-Adrian-Hadley-has-revealed-the-shocking-scale-of-the-Bloodgate-scandal-by-declaring-Blood-capsules-have-been-used-for-20-years-Hadley-a-star-in-rugby-union-and-league-spent-more-than-two-decades-in-the-game-both-as-player-and-coac.htmlAdrian Hadley claims that blood capsules were around when he was at Salford and Widnes[/url. Although if you read the article it says that he never saw one being used, but the way the article is written it suggest that it's (been) an issue in RL.

I disagree, Iain old mate, for the following reasons:

1 - This report is from the journal described in Private Eye as W*nkers Weekly, a paper which has been known to get things wrong.

2 - As you rightly point out, Adrian Hadley in the interview said that he never saw them used in rugby league (he seems only to have heard rumours).

3 - He also points out that the difference between Salford when he played for them, and (presumably) Harlequins RU now, is that the Salford players did not want to come off the pitch. Then he says that if a player had a cut then he would "smear the blood around and make it look worse". So did they want to come off or not? A confused interviewee, and clearly the journalist who wrote this up was not Neville Cardus.

It's a bit of a non-story. And to show the gullibility of some of the people who read NOTW, there's a comment underneath the article from a yawnion fan saying that the RU bloodgate business is all the fault of the proper rugby code, and that we who follow the proper code should not take the moral high ground.

As far as I'm concerned, League is the only game worth following, so says me Granddad and me Dad who both stood in Shed. So who am I to argue?!?

Sack them southern nancies off. Bring on the Salford is what I say. Them nancies thoughts are unimportant. Only thing they need to know is that their beloved Webb Ellis was a scally from Weaste who was too lazy to kick the ball and picked it up and went for a run!!

Not sure why RL fans consider RU as an 'opponent' any more. RU has gone into the stratosphere while RL has remained relatively stagnant.

While RU may have problems, such as bloodgate, at least it's administration is in a far better state. They certainly don't have to create teams and promote them into the top league, stating that they have been given a place because they have a 'good business plan'.

Mini rant over

Enfield Exile






I work with a large number of Sale fans (working within 1/2 mile of the ground) who can talk knowledgably about RL whereas few |RL fans can talk with knowledge about RU. I do not see RU as a threat but I do see soccer as a threat.

We could learn a lot from the way the RU game is run.

I don't think of RU as an 'opponent', but when you look at the relative coverage of RU and RL in the national dailies, considering that as many people pay to watch RL as RU, we still have a great deal of prejudice to overcome.

There are lots of RU supporters enthusiastic and knowledgeable about our game, yes. And no small number who rant against it - see the comment on the NoTW link of Iain's about how the bloodgate affair was 'the fault of RL'. And don't get me started about the bloke in the army who told me he was unable to play rugby league, whatever the regulations say, due to the attitudes in his regiment.

Our opponent is ignorance.