No you and your chum just need to think. At what point has it passed you by that some posters on this and various other forums think the RFL have helped the Bulls out far more than they should have.



Now - and this is the key - regardless of whether you believe that to be the case or not, nobody and I mean nobody could not have noticed such a strain of opinion existed. Hence the statement RFL Bulls is an obvious derogatory statement, done in the same way people like you love to call posters ludites etc when you don't agree with them.



Your attempt to look oh so clever in your contempt riddled response to the original poster just made you look oh so dim.



For the record I think the RFL Bulls tag is amusing but not really fair or accurate.

Wahay it's the poor mans Smokey

Oh bless you Vastman, do you really think I give a chuff what you think you poor, self deluding throwback

Serious question - what standards are we holding them to? You obviously don't think finding a main sponsor is mission-critical for any incumbent of the job. That's fine if your opinion, but let me put it this way: what would the RFL have to do ( or fail to do ) for you to consider them being in need of replacement? ( the people running it that is, not the RFL itself)



On the other matter, I don't see whether loving or hating the RFL has any bearing on someone's credibility as a fan of RL. Someone could be a massive fan,but really angry because (rightly or wrongly) they perceive the RFL as screwing up the sport they love. Or they could love Nigel and his pals. Either way, it doesn't mean they're in any way anti-RL.



Let's have less self-appointed opinion-censors please.

So why are you replying?



You can't come up with a decent reply so you take your bat and ball home - did dums





"throwback" you're even to dim to realise I don't even agree with the OP, deary deary me

Maybe some are more switched on to realising that things like sponsoring are taking quite a hit in recent years across many sports. An example is comments made last week in F1 by McLaren team boss Martin Whitmarsh.



Whitmarsh says [i''much of the present problem is a hangover from the 2008 global financial crisis. Advertising and sponsorship contracts signed before the crash have come to an end. New backers are thin on the ground, while existing ones are not willing to pay top dollar for the privilege of continuing''[/i. That a much bigger sport like F1 is struggling to an extent that several teams are in [i''survival mode''[/i perhaps puts the struggles that RL and its teams have experienced in perspective (at least to reasoned people).



[i"The business environment is tough everywhere, not just in F1.



"Looking at F1, the acid test should be whether the team is sustainable without support from a shareholder, who are often also sponsors.



"If the answer is 'yes', then the business is healthy. If not, then teams will still probably survive but not because they are self-sufficient but only because the owners keep them going. If their parent company switched off the tap, then they would not survive."[/i









Let's have less of the self-appointed saviours of the sport dismissing everything as bad without enough logical thinking of wider pictures.

This one definitely sums up most posters on here:

Maybe rather than posting ' picture quotes ' , you'd actually tell us what the RFL have done in these key area's , as defined by the competition criteria ?









As I have asked on several threads but have always been ignored



What exactly has the RFL done to make the 2/3 tiers " Vibrant and worth winning " ?



Over to you Wellsy

Nothing at all, you are 100% correct, no one wants to win anything in any division of the game at all, and barely even bother to go through the motions week in and week out.

intention to make the Championships more ' Vibrant and worth winning ' , so what has he done in the last 4 years to help achieve that ?



Simple question