I thought it was really muddy when I turned on. Turns out it was an intentional choice.Harlequins look like they are going on safari.
I thought it was really muddy when I turned on. Turns out it was an intentional choice.Harlequins look like they are going on safari.
Sale 2
More points than you'll get against Newcastle next weekReally should be 4-1
TBH, I think you will give us a good game. We tend to struggle against the more physical sides and can't defend mauls. At present, you are playing a more physical brand of rugby and have a very good maul so if you punish us when you get the chance, you could definitely turn us over.Given that a few Saints fans on other forums had us finishing 13th after the opening round game I must admit I did chuckle a bit at this result as it means we're above them. Mind you given we have Quins on Sunday it might only be temporary!
TBH, I think you will give us a good game. We tend to struggle against the more physical sides and can't defend mauls. At present, you are playing a more physical brand of rugby and have a very good maul so if you punish us when you get the chance, you could definitely turn us over.
Wonder how far back the "historical" aspect is?
Tigers players having their wives/partners employed on ludicrous wages with sponsors was a pretty open secret as far back as I can remember
If it's as far back as the Cat days, etc., then I think most clubs will be sweating about dodgy dealings done at one point or another
Thanks, I was just about to ask that. Were the rules pretty much the same for these 5 years? I can see the sense in applying a statute of limitation as it would be a nightmare checking loads of different years against the rules for that particular year.From what I gather it can only go back 5 years.
I believe this is investigation 2017-2019/20