$txt['mentions'] = 'Mentions'; $txt['scheduled_task_removeMentions'] = 'Remove seen mentions'; $txt['scheduled_task_desc_removeMentions'] = 'Automatically removes seen mentions older than the specified days'; Show Posts - avinastella

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - avinastella

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 192
1
Other Senior Rugby / Re: RFU North Review
« on: Today at 12:12:51 PM »

Dan

True they had pitch problems but RFU North simply caved in when they said they were not going to complete their fixtures.

Think you will find most of their remaining fixtures were away only one at home. They also had access to a all weather pitch in Whitehaven which they could have used.

The problem with removing all their results from the league was it changed who got relegated.
Not saying they were right in what they did. It was just an article i read after someone mentioned Benedicts had 'disappeared' from the Leagues.

There really does seem to be differing rules and standards being applied across the various leagues.

2
Other Senior Rugby / Re: RFU North Review
« on: Today at 11:25:08 AM »
Sorry ASS but

"We also have clubs who did NOT receive any communication confirming their GMS contact details are correct and upto date."

If their contact details were'nt correct they would'nt receive an email asking if they were.
???
Having just got in and re read, punctuation and the odd word makes all the difference.

At the meetings, clubs confirmed  their details were correct and on the system. They receive all other communications but non for the meetings. They were made aware of the meetings through this forum and talking to other clubs.

At both meetings, when this issue was raised, Jim blamed the clubs and yet we have confirmation clubs weren't on the email list.
A well respected official  flagged up concerns about the issue of some clubs other than L6 also missing from the list and asked if the letter could be placed on the forum, hence this thread.

3
Other Senior Rugby / Re: RFU North Review
« on: Today at 09:23:38 AM »

Now it’s fair to say that the conspiracy theorists among us are citing not being informed of proposals, missing invites to meetings and “promised” alternative options by “whoever” as part of some Machiavellian plot. I will say we are crediting “whoever” they are way too much. I would offer the suggestion that certainly a good part of the issue is with the Clubs themselves.  What do I mean it’s the Clubs fault? Well, to put it simply GIGO (I work in the IT Industry so I’ve seen my far share of Garbage In, Garbage Out over the years). The RFU Game Management System (GMS) is a significant investment that the powers that be in HQ hope and believe will help them, CBs and Clubs run the game more efficiently....... and in some cases I believe it will. However as in a case with a Club in Lancashire who claimed they hadn’t received emails, we confirmed they had gone to the Secretary on GMS, ”Ah he’s no longer Secretary.”  So did he forward the emails to the correct person then.....”No he’s changed his email address...” ok, it was on the County Website and Social Media, “We don’t really look at the Website...”

Except we have members of the NOC/YRFU confirming L6 were NOT included in any official communicatiion.
We also have clubs who did NOT receive any communication confirming their GMS contact details are correct and upto date. This would suggest no conspiracy theory that the GMS is flawed - as seems to be a common concern. Do you not find it odd that the clubs not in receipt of communication of potential changes receive all other emails from the RFU?
We then get the conflict arising from Jim and the panel telling different regions different things, Jims letter to the YRFU/clubs effectively confirming this.


4
Other Senior Rugby / Re: RFU North Review
« on: Today at 08:27:32 AM »
I think it is outrageous the way they are just doing what they want without any thought to the Cumbrian clubs, nor their Eastern counterparts.

They have lost all faith in the Cumbrian clubs. The Cumbrian have for years been allowed to break the rules with impunity.

Most recently last season when St Benedicts abandoned their final league fixtures, which effected relegation of Lancashire clubs. Then this season St Benedicts just reappear in Cumbria division one as though nothing has happened.

You reap what you sow.
I read an article last season where the RFU ‘sanctioned’ St Benedict’s actions.
Main reason was the state of the pitch. They were having a new pitch laid and their existing pitch was almost permanently waterlogged and unplayable.
As they had already lost so many games and were already relegated and no chance of catching up their backlog of fixture, they were encouraged to drop out.

5
Other Senior Rugby / Re: RFU North Review
« on: Yesterday at 10:34:16 PM »
Participating in the ECC (RFU Leagues) is not compulsory. As long as a club meets all the requirements of RFU Membership they are entitled to all/any benefits.
Look at clubs who only play in the Merit Leagues, University sides even. Are they to be denied RFU benefits?

What isn't on is throwing your toys out of the pram then saying you'll only come back if everything meets your requirements and if it doesn't saying f**k the Cumbrians let the NE clubs look after them.

The problem was the panel saw the opportunity to try and implement their last failed attempt at restructuring and dragged all the Northern clubs into it whilst rolling over to Lancashire.
Cheshire and Lancashire created a mess, the panel escalated it into a complete clusterf***.

6
Other Senior Rugby / Re: RFU North Review
« on: Yesterday at 06:58:18 PM »
And the saga over the hill continues.

http://lancashirerfu.pitchero.com/news/porposed-lc-structure-26479/

Looks like Lancs and cheshire are wahing their hands of Cunbria yet expect the East to help them out.

Talk about picking and choosing.

7
Yorkshire 1 / Re: Yorkshire Shield
« on: Yesterday at 01:25:10 PM »
is the semi final down to be at Brods or Town?
Brods

8
Yorkshire 1 / Re: Pundits League Week 23
« on: Yesterday at 10:18:42 AM »
Salem +7
Heath -7
Bev +7
Boro +7
Town +7
Crocs +7
Ponte +7

9
Other Senior Rugby / Re: Cup comps
« on: Yesterday at 09:51:33 AM »
Now at 26 walkovers so far this season.

We still await the panels evidence that clubs want more cup rugby.

10
North One / Re: Pundits' League: Week 23 predictions
« on: March 21, 2019, 10:43:41 PM »
Brid +7
Cons -7
Driff -7
Scabs -7
PP +7
Morp +7
York +7

11
North One / Re: Champions...
« on: March 21, 2019, 09:51:25 PM »
Looking at latest Disciplinary report and it seems Scarborough were on the naughty step.
What did they do?

12
Any puffs of smoke?  Someone on the Durham and Northumberland site says the decision has already been made .
You and many others already suspected that right from the off.

Personally, I suspect it will now get kicked into the long grass where it belongs, certainly for this side of the hills.

13
Yorkshire 1 / Re: Yorkshire Shield
« on: March 21, 2019, 11:18:57 AM »
Brods V Moortown on Saturday is not going to be a double header on the request of Brods

Would like to here the logic behind this decision.. seems a waste of a perfect opportunity to get the game wrapped up and out of the way from both angles!
Or double bar take.

14
North One / Re: Blackburn V Scarborough Play off
« on: March 19, 2019, 04:04:06 PM »
Lots of water to go under lots of bridges first I suspect. They will be staying at Cross Green all next Season and have been talking to ‘ other clubs in the area ‘ about where they will play whilst the new place is being built.
Couple of them dreadful plastic pitches nearby. They don't appear to get much use.

15
Yorkshire 1 / Re: Otley points deduction
« on: March 19, 2019, 04:02:41 PM »
I assumed Donny Phoenix were aware along what they had done, whereas Otley weren't. ??

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 192