"weve had a lean spell trophy wise but Warrington, Wakey, Huddersfield, Salford, HKR, Qunis and dare i say Leeds and Hull have not been as succesful as us in the SL era."
[/quote]
I'll go further than that, Warrington have not had ANY success whatsoever in the SL era!
In fact we have only won the Lancashire Cup, John Player and the Premiership in the last 34 years!...No league title and no challenge cup.
With the exception of only Salford and Wakefield who have both seen relegation I think?, we have the worst record in the SL era from any of the teams in the SL this season including Hull KR![/quote]
Was not making the point to get at you PNB but making a comment re sponsors. Sponsors wants teams who are seen by most numbers of people.
If we do go down this season or even Hull, Warrington or any of the regarded top 6 supported clubs theyd get a franchise before any of the lesser supported clubs. As in the end money talks. And the better supported clubs generate more money regardless of success.
theGimble said
"weve had a lean spell trophy wise but Warrington, Wakey, Huddersfield, Salford, HKR, Qunis and dare i say Leeds and Hull have not been as succesful as us in the SL era."
I'll go further than that, Warrington have not had ANY success whatsoever in the SL era!
In fact we have only won the Lancashire Cup, John Player and the Premiership in the last 34 years!...No league title and no challenge cup.
With the exception of only Salford and Wakefield who have both seen relegation I think?, we have the worst record in the SL era from any of the teams in the SL this season including Hull KR!
Much as I hate to make you feel better - Hull KR have not won a play off game (as it is their first season in SL) and I don't think Wakey have either.
Furthermore I don't think that you have ever had a serious threat of relegation.
"And Martin Offiah, trying to make some space, now then..." - Ray French, Wembley 1994
------------------------------------------------
Interviewer: So that obviously means that you're not going to St Helens and you're not going to Leeds?
Frano: I don't know why I would ever want to go to St Helens or Leeds
------------------------------------------------
DaveO posted:
You are right we do have too many overseas players but don't forget two were signed by Nobby, Withers and Millard.
Withers salary should have been used on a third experienced prop to replace Logan and the fact it wasn't is down to Nobby, not Mo.
Dave
I got told on Friday night that towards the end of last season Mo told Nobby that he could sign six players who he wanted,Nobby lined up the players he wanted only to be told by Mo that due to salary cap he couldnt sign the players he wanted & only had X amount to spend.Dont know how true it is but the person who told me does have somthing to do with the club.It would also back up some rumours in close season that Nobby had fallen out wuth Mo.For me MO has got to go,especialy if the rumours are true about 6 points being deduted in march.
It doesn't matter how many players Nobby ended up signing the fact is he signed Withers instead of a prop. That is his doing not Mo's.
The players I am sure Nobby signed last season and prior to this are Hill, Withers, Millard and Flanagan and to be honest I can't see why we need any of those more then we do a third experienced prop and that is regardless of how good (or not) they all are in their respective positions.
Dave
Your right we do need another prop desparatley,but i f the players you mentioned were'nt signed the squad would be even more paper thin than it is now.Withers was signed as cover for all the backs including stand off.Millard i dont know why he signed him other than a cheap stop gap at hooker.Hill was signed when we had the injury crisis last season & Nobby seem's to think he can play prop.Flanagan is one for the future.I just think Nobby like a lot of our past coach's has his hands tied by MO signing's who are on Big money.Also if MO tell's him he can sign 6 players he should have done his sum's first not go back on his word.
