Hood's not graceless.

This is graceless.

So you knew your analogy was bollox when you wrote it.
OK.



It is a cliche and everyone knows what it means. It's shorthand for a wealthy backer who has more money than sense. But why am I telling you this, when you already know? It would seem to be just you who has a problem with what is an ordinary term, well understood by everyone else.


I have no reason to believe so. Do you? If not, why ask?


"Opprobrium", now, is it?
Don't you think you're getting just a tad carried away with yourself now?


I refuse to engage in Rhetorical Questions For Dummies, ta. I would suggest though that whatever financial relationship either of those two exceptionally shrewd businessmen might ever be interested in entering into, anything akin to a sugar daddy would not be it. If you think either would pour vast sums of money into a business for nothing but personal aggrandisement, kudos or whatever (I presume you aren't implying sexual favours) then you truly must be mad.

OTOH if I were as rich as an Abramovich, I might well be inclined to be a sugar daddy for the Bulls. I wouldn't mind a bit if anyone used the phrase, as in that situation I wouldn't be making any sort of real investment, I'd just be chasing a dream, and it would be a very reasonable description.

I didn't want to mention that first but it's what I've been thinking.

You mean the number of posts which cite the financial constraints as a reason why the club has been struggling to perform off-field? Can't be those, then.

Or the number of posts suggesting that the financial constraints have suggested the club has not been able to sign the best players, even though we were told we were spending at or close to the cap? Could maybe be those, but you'd first have to assume that Bulls were spending well below the cap, and we can see teams not far from us in the competition who definitely WILL be spending the cap. So not sure its those either.

More realistically, maybe its the number of posts that have both blamed the league position on McNamara AND at the same time taken the financial constraints as being THE reason why we have not engaged a superstar coach? Although nearly everyone blaming Macca was not recognising the financial constraints anyway, were they? They just said the board should spend...so they were not blaming the "financial situation". Not them, then.

So I'm struggling a bit to identify these "...thousands of posts on RAB blamimg (sic) your league position squarley (sic) on the financial situation at the club".

Maybe its because there have not actually been?

Ooh, the advantiges of a spell chequer.

Had pedant hat on there a bit deliberately, will admit!

Come on Adey you well know that if we were sat top of Super League table playing breathtaking rugby the "Financial Constraints" wouldn't be mentioned. It's only because this season so far has been a massive under achievement it's getting used now as the favorite excuse.

But we're not, and the constraints we are under, far from being an excuse, were well known before a ball was kicked.

If we were sat top of Super League table playing breathtaking rugby that would only be because (a) we had suddenly magicked up another beat-all-comers-all-the-time team and (b) had come into pots of mysterious dosh.

Also don't see money as the "favourite excuse". If there has to be one, it is that we were always going to be, and will be for some time, in a rebuilding phase. I'd see it as a fact, but whether one man's fact is another man's excuse doesn't alterthe situation.