Yes, indeed. It's the Old Boys' Club at work. The players want one of their own "in charge". Such is the way the franchise is being run.
As I feared the contract issue is being slightly mis-represented by that SH based site – it’s not a new issue at all. This contract issue of the way the RFU uses players images for commercial gain has actually been under negotiation for at least 18 months. It has been the case that the players have seen little recompense from their image being plastered all over merchandise - and they are simply trying to slightly correct the balance via their players union not as individual egos.
The site has spun it well by talking of “increased commercial profile” in a totally unattributed quote (i.e. the hack made it up?). It’s a bit silly that they are trying to stoke up ‘arrogant English’ when it’s going to be a bunch of kids going down there helping the local Unions raise stacks of cash again for grass roots rugby.
Yes, you get to wear that for four years. Like we did. It's meaningless.
The Reds are really going to need his experience with the re-building that's going to have to happen.
Poor Saints – what foreigner will they target now I wonder?
The seals put up more of a contest than the West Indians did.
*edit*
Oh yes that tag line to the article - about the 98 farce when 14 players withdrew. The players that didn't tour had just played 24 months of continuous rugby because of the Lions tour in 1997. Only the RFU wanted the 98 tour to maintain it's revenue stream. I refer back to my earlier point about hack spin!
Who is Greg Growden? I just know that he and I would not get along.
Comment