Ditch Scotland and Italy?

First topic message reminder :

Chris Foy in the papers today is advocating that Scotland and Italy should be excluded from the 6Ns on the grounds that they are second tier and have been for the last10 years. I have to say that I have a lot of sympathy with this idea.  It's not good for a test side to get humped by 50 points every year. He suggests they should become part of a kind of div 2 with USA, Canada, Georgia and possibly Romania. Obviously bringing in promotion and relegation would add spice.

alive555 wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:I love the way us 'English' are criticized for poking our noses into other peoples business yet when we try to look after our own clubs interests we are criticized for not doing more to help failing Nations to play a game.

 

incredible arrogance.

who has criticized you for poking your noses into other peoples business ??

the only thing english club rugby is offering is, unsurprisingly, to get as much of the pot in their bellies at everyone elses expense. bar none.

their performance in the heiniken cup should be results driven and therefore the rabo should have more not less teams , and more not less of the revenue. end of story

Total genius, why don't we go the whole hog and gift every single team in the Rabo automatic qualification? It's practically there as it is... I mean, the Scottish, Italian, at least one Welsh Region and one Irish Province would qualifiy for top level European rugby every year without automatic qualification wouldn't they? NOT.

Irish Londoner wrote:The two tier idea will be all well and good as long as it's Italy and Scotland yo-yoing between the bottom place and another set of whipping boys from Europe coming to gift the "Big" sides a good points difference. However, if at some point one of France or England slip up then suddenly it will be a bad idea and "don't you understand we have all the fans and the TV money and can't possibly be relegated to play the likes of Romania and Spain", and how are we going to sell out Twickenham/SdeF"....

And Ireland or Wales would accept it either? Dont think so.

Infact thats why its a mute point...not one of the teams are going to agree to potentially giving up the money from the 6n! Dont just label "arrogant greedy English" !!

Scrumpy wrote:But why should 'the English' look after Scotland and Italy?

Guns?
Maybe Ireland, the RABO or ERC should do more to help Scotland and Italy.

Us 'English' can't do it all!

Irish Londoner wrote:The two tier idea will be all well and good as long as it's Italy and Scotland yo-yoing between the bottom place and another set of whipping boys from Europe coming to gift the "Big" sides a good points difference. However, if at some point one of France or England slip up then suddenly it will be a bad idea and "don't you understand we have all the fans and the TV money and can't possibly be relegated to play the likes of Romania and Spain", and how are we going to sell out Twickenham/SdeF"....

Star Post so far

Scrumpy wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:But why should 'the English' look after Scotland and Italy?

Guns?
Maybe Ireland, the RABO or ERC should do more to help Scotland and Italy.

Us 'English' can't do it all!

What's with the 'English' bit?

Is you is or is you ain't English, guys?

This is becoming even more controversial if you guys are even dropping England into inverted commas.

GunsGerms wrote:Maybe the English should focus on helping teams like Italy and Scotland become stronger rather than shafting them at every opportunity ala the recent Heineken cup ramson talks.

SecretFly please see the above post!

Irish Londoner wrote:The two tier idea will be all well and good as long as it's Italy and Scotland yo-yoing between the bottom place and another set of whipping boys from Europe coming to gift the "Big" sides a good points difference. However, if at some point one of France or England slip up then suddenly it will be a bad idea and "don't you understand we have all the fans and the TV money and can't possibly be relegated to play the likes of Romania and Spain", and how are we going to sell out Twickenham/SdeF"....

What a perfect example of a straw man argument. Creating a hypothetical situation, stating how one group would react and then berate them for acting that way.

I would be more than happy for England to be 'relegated' first off just to get the ball rolling. I'd be more than happy for England to take a cut in money so the relegated side doesn't lose out too. I'm not the RFU of course but then the RFU aren't calling for these either.

GeordieFalcon, I don't really care. Just something that any team in Europe could qualify for.

GunsGerms wrote:

Notch wrote:Guns  

Is that the best contribution you have Notch. Maybe you should join a debating society?

When you read an article and then say 'the English' want this and 'the English' want that, it just comes across as generalising in the laziest way possible. The opinion of an English journalist and a few English fans does NOT equal all English people.

If Neil Francis or George Hook wrote some idiotic article in an Irish paper that nobody really agrees with and one of the English posters came on here and started making sweeping statements about 'the Irish' based on that, you would see it as incredibly flimsy stereotyping so why you feel it makes sense to do it to fans of other nations is beyond me.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:The two tier idea will be all well and good as long as it's Italy and Scotland yo-yoing between the bottom place and another set of whipping boys from Europe coming to gift the "Big" sides a good points difference. However, if at some point one of France or England slip up then suddenly it will be a bad idea and "don't you understand we have all the fans and the TV money and can't possibly be relegated to play the likes of Romania and Spain", and how are we going to sell out Twickenham/SdeF"....

And Ireland or Wales would accept it either? Dont think so.

Infact thats why its a mute point...not one of the teams are going to agree to potentially giving up the money from the 6n! Dont just label "arrogant greedy English" !!

But Geordie... it isn't Ireland or Welsh papers that this stuff is being written in.  Irish journalists don't want Scotland or Italy out.  But this Foy guy (is he English btw?...I wouldn't call him one unless he is one) is writing in an English paper.............. and he's added to Paul Hayward's earlier piece calling for Scotland to be dumped.

SecretFly wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:The two tier idea will be all well and good as long as it's Italy and Scotland yo-yoing between the bottom place and another set of whipping boys from Europe coming to gift the "Big" sides a good points difference. However, if at some point one of France or England slip up then suddenly it will be a bad idea and "don't you understand we have all the fans and the TV money and can't possibly be relegated to play the likes of Romania and Spain", and how are we going to sell out Twickenham/SdeF"....

And Ireland or Wales would accept it either? Dont think so.

Infact thats why its a mute point...not one of the teams are going to agree to potentially giving up the money from the 6n! Dont just label "arrogant greedy English" !!

But Geordie... it isn't Ireland or Welsh papers that this stuff is being written in.  Irish journalists don't want Scotland or Italy out.  But this Foy guy (is he English btw?...I wouldn't call him one unless he is one) is writing in an English paper.............. and he's added to Paul Hayward's earlier piece calling for Scotland to be dumped.

And is he speaking for the whole of the English public...is he representing us as it being spouted by Guns n Germs wumming it up? No hes not representing me or in deed the RFU!

GunsGerms wrote:It isnt looking after your own clubs it being greedy to the detriment to everyone esle. Thats how I see it anyway.

spot on . right on the money.

alive555 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:It isnt looking after your own clubs it being greedy to the detriment to everyone esle. Thats how I see it anyway.

spot on . right on the money.

Off topic!

boo hoo  

But for what its worth, it was their job to get the best deal for English clubs.

Why should they look after Italy and Scotland?

Scrumpy wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:But why should 'the English' look after Scotland and Italy?

Guns?
Maybe Ireland, the RABO or ERC should do more to help Scotland and Italy.

Us 'English' can't do it all!

We should all look after each other in helping spread the game.

As for helping Scotland and Italy you need to realize the Irish having been fighting their corner in this years spat re European club rugby.
We could have easily agreed straight qualification through the league - would make no difference to Ireland but we haven't and have continued to insist on 1 rep per country minimum.

This can be further seen that the Welsh want the European money split by the number of teams in the Rabo but the others are insisting it iis split 4 ways. Ireland would be better off taking the Welsh stance but they are not

GeordieFalcon, I don't really care. Just something that any team in Europe could qualify for..

hammer i too like the idea of this. However great care would be needed. Whilst the likes of Russia, Georgia, Romania etc could probably do ok against the big teams...it would be irresponsible to pit any of the 6n teams against a 6nC team for example.

The only answer might be a competition every 2 years. We could include the "A" teams from the 6n's...(the Saxons, Wolfhounds etc...) and then teams from the Euro Nations cup.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:The two tier idea will be all well and good as long as it's Italy and Scotland yo-yoing between the bottom place and another set of whipping boys from Europe coming to gift the "Big" sides a good points difference. However, if at some point one of France or England slip up then suddenly it will be a bad idea and "don't you understand we have all the fans and the TV money and can't possibly be relegated to play the likes of Romania and Spain", and how are we going to sell out Twickenham/SdeF"....

And Ireland or Wales would accept it either? Dont think so.

Infact thats why its a mute point...not one of the teams are going to agree to potentially giving up the money from the 6n! Dont just label "arrogant greedy English" !!

But Geordie... it isn't Ireland or Welsh papers that this stuff is being written in.  Irish journalists don't want Scotland or Italy out.  But this Foy guy (is he English btw?...I wouldn't call him one unless he is one) is writing in an English paper.............. and he's added to Paul Hayward's earlier piece calling for Scotland to be dumped.

And is he speaking for the whole of the English public...is he representing us as it being spouted by Guns n Germs wumming it up? No hes not representing me or in deed the RFU!

Emmm.................. well you could say the same thing about the ancient HEC debate.  Did IRFU represent every view of every IRFU member or 606 fan in the debate?  Hardly.  But people still said "the Irish" to shorthand their thoughts on the debate.  
Did PRL represent the views of each and every English club member or fan?  Hardly.  But people still used "English Clubs" and "English" when shorthanding their views on the debate.  We even had the word "Celt" used over and over...which represents nothing except a weak generalisation attached to three very different rugby nations in structure and culture.

Shorthand gets used to classify areas of an agrument map.  If we call for legal representatives to class what we mean by "English", "Irish" or "Welsh" in 606 and further afield then the first one up in court is the English player who said the Welsh hate them.  Was he speaking for all English people in thinking that or speaking out against all Welsh people in saying that was true?

Nope...he was shorthanding the excitement of the clash.

Wouldn't it better just to say Foy then Fly? Shortens it even more and it would actually be easier to understand.

englandglory4ever wrote:Chris Foy in the papers today is advocating that Scotland and Italy should be excluded from the 6Ns on the grounds that they are second tier and have been for the last 10 years. I have to say that I have a lot of sympathy with this idea.  It's not good for a test side to get humped by 50 points every year. He suggests they should become part of a kind of div 2 with USA, Canada, Georgia and possibly Romania. Obviously bringing in promotion and relegation would add spice.

Sorry, have I been watching the wrong tournament over the years?

Scotland does not get 'humped by 50 points every year'.

In the past few years we have beaten Argentina 2/2 abroad in a summer tour, a new record. We've beaten Australia home and away. We've beaten South Africa at Murrayfield. We beat England in 2008 and 2006. We beat Ireland in 2013 and 2010(?) at Croke Park, a last minute Dan Parks penalty.

A 'div 2' that you propose is getting into the realms of the world cup.

I do think perhaps a 2nd Tier European competition should be looked at over the next few years and give an opportunity for Scotland and Italy to improve, involving Georgia and Romania with relegation from Tier 1 - Ireland, France, Wales & England.

----

Just on the side, don't be so ignorant and incompetent. In 2012 and 2010 you had win rates of only 50%, hardly tier 1 levels. Don't go charging about making slack, off hand claims about the state of our rugby - which are incorrect. If you know so little about rugby in Scotland and Italy, which is evident, you shouldn't be making such remarks.

SecretFly wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:The two tier idea will be all well and good as long as it's Italy and Scotland yo-yoing between the bottom place and another set of whipping boys from Europe coming to gift the "Big" sides a good points difference. However, if at some point one of France or England slip up then suddenly it will be a bad idea and "don't you understand we have all the fans and the TV money and can't possibly be relegated to play the likes of Romania and Spain", and how are we going to sell out Twickenham/SdeF"....

And Ireland or Wales would accept it either? Dont think so.

Infact thats why its a mute point...not one of the teams are going to agree to potentially giving up the money from the 6n! Dont just label "arrogant greedy English" !!

But Geordie... it isn't Ireland or Welsh papers that this stuff is being written in.  Irish journalists don't want Scotland or Italy out.  But this Foy guy (is he English btw?...I wouldn't call him one unless he is one) is writing in an English paper.............. and he's added to Paul Hayward's earlier piece calling for Scotland to be dumped.

And is he speaking for the whole of the English public...is he representing us as it being spouted by Guns n Germs wumming it up? No hes not representing me or in deed the RFU!

Emmm.................. well you could say the same thing about the ancient HEC debate.  Did IRFU represent every view of every IRFU member or 606 fan in the debate?  Hardly.  But people still said "the Irish" to shorthand their thoughts on the debate.  
Did PRL represent the views of each and every English club member or fan?  Hardly.  But people still used "English Clubs" and "English" when shorthanding their views on the debate.  We even had the word "Celt" used over and over...which represents nothing except a weak generalisation attached to three very different rugby nations in structure and culture.

Shorthand gets used to classify areas of an agrument map.  If we call for legal representatives to class what we mean by "English", "Irish" or "Welsh" in 606 and further afield then the first one up in court is the English player who said the Welsh hate them.  Was he speaking for all English people in thinking that or speaking out against all Welsh people in saying that was true?

Nope...he was shorthanding the excitement of the clash.

Probably more so than some random reporter spouting rubbish "representing" all of the English public.

Well the IRFU ARE the representatives of Irish rugby. The PRL ARE the representatives of the top level of English domestic rugby. A poster on here or a journalist in the media only represent themselves.

GeordieFalcon, regarding the European Compeittion. It would require a complete overhall of the season as the current NH season is structured around the 6 nations. Currently the only thing that would fit is to have a straight up and down relegation. Ideally (IMO) there should be home and away playoffs, 1) to make sure the promoted side is comparable or better than the relegated side, 2) gauge the improvement of the 2nd tier, 3) give the top of the second tier a couple of games against reasonable opposition, including at home. Problem? Scheduling it would be impossible.

Could you not have a summer tournament. It would replace the former Churchill Cup in many repsects...but more European based.

Group 1
Saxons
Russia
Germany
Bulgaria

Group 2
Wolfhounds
Georgia
Spain
Denmark

G3
Wales 'A'
Romania
Belgium
Cyprus

etc etc

If it was an A competition then yes but I think the IRB wanted to cut out the A competitions and give them proper tests.

I was thinking about having it as full tests during a Lions year but then the SH teams miss out of their home tour and the money it makes (unless they have a 'rest of the world' competiton)

Aside from russia, Georgia, Romania...who would still get beat are any other teams in the Euro Nations Cup leagues able to step up. I dont think there is. That is why it has to be an 'A' competition, until more teams reach the required level to play against the full 1st teams.

Division 1A
Belgium
Georgia
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Spain

Division 1B
Czech Republic
Germany
Moldova
Poland
Sweden
Ukraine

Division 2A
Croatia
Lithuania
Malta
Netherlands
Switzerland

Division 2B
Andorra
Denmark
Israel
Latvia
Serbia

Division 2C
Austria
Cyprus
Bulgaria
Hungary
Slovenia

Division 2D
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Finland
Greece
Luxembourg
Norway

Division 3A
Azerbaijan
Estonia
Slovakia
Turkey

Wales and France dont have A teams do they?

Maybe there should as Geordie says have a B competition with the Wolfhounds, Saxons, Romania, Georgia and Spain but at the same time as the six nations.

Im not sure if they do Guns, but i think its a good thing to have and it might push them into starting up those sides.

This way the tier 2/3 teams that every one is crying about will get competition against good players in the 6n 'A' teams. And if they prove they can beat the A teams comfortably enough then we can consider them playing the full senior teams.

having a relegation promotion from 2 tiers of rugby would guarantee ireland, france, england or wales would go down at least every other year- so lets not make out this is some kind of eletest nonsense- imagine the magnitude of trying to avoid that wooden spoon.

anyway My ideal solution has allways been the classic 6 nations every other year and a European cup every other year. That involves everyone and is a great starting point into getting other teams in to rugby. There is no english' mentality BS going on here like guns has implied..

Mysti

How many of the European teams above though would you have in? Apart from 3 or 4...putting them against one of the 6n senior teams would genuinely create a cricket score. Thats why i suggest a "A" team format initially against those teams full teams.

well initially we have a pre qualifying- like cricket world cups- then we end up with a super 8 type thing

Not interested in a relegation promotion six nations at all. Run the B league and assess after 10 years if any of the teams are good enough to be included not including the Saxons nor wolfhounds.

Only two teams have never won the wooden spoon in the six nations so anyone could get relegated but dont think it adds anything at all to add relegation because part of the reason the 6 nations is so great because of the history amoungst all the of teams.

We cant just keep including other teams Guns..

6 teams is really the limit..

We have to just inculde them all in a tourney every other year or every 4 years. The top teams dont have to play the worst teams as would be seeded straight into the super 8's or knock outs or whatever - but a couple would end up getting into the last 8 every european event

You could add one more team. The rugby championship has six fixtures for each team each year. We would just do away with one rest weekend which everyone hates anyway.

thats all well and good- but you cant just keeping adding another team to the format. we can say 7 is ok but then how do we get to 8 or then 9 or then 10..

lets include them all- let them pre qualify on merit to add to the top 4-6 and be done with it every off year. Its the only long term soloutiuon

mystiroakey wrote:thats all well and good- but you cant just keeping adding another team to the format. we can say 7 is ok but then how do we get to 8 or then 9 or then 10..

lets include them all- let them pre qualify on merit to add to the top 4-6 and be done with it every off year. Its the only long term soloutiuon

Cross that bridge when we come to it. Dont like the idea of relegation. Cant see it adding anything but potentially killing off the likes of Scotland or Italy.

I think the next expansion should be to 8 teams with two conferences of 4, then to 10 teams with conferences of 5. Relegation is a poor idea. Get the best European Nations Cup teams 2 or 3 tests a season against 6N teams and once they are winning as many as they lose get the best two into the tournament etc.

Euro champsionship style competition every 2 years or 4. Wouldnt affect the actual 6n.

Gives all the lower tier nations a good competition and also exposure to top level players.

so have two pools and then a final with the top 2 sides.. its ok in principle- but for me i dont want to go down a road of saying ok lets include spain and georigia but not portugal or russia - let them all pre qualify for there spots into a super 8 or 10 format first, were you have two pools and then the finals or top 2 sides from each group going on to semis

Over on another thread................... well, there is actually a thread specifically there for no other purpose but to throw out a sneer at the team most likely to be relegated from AP this season.

So yes....... these Promotion/Relegation leagues leave a nasty taste in my mouth.

I'd much prefer see simply another rival 6N begin in Europe in isolation to our one.  Let it grow, see what happens, see how good they get and possibly see some of them embarrass some of us in subsequent World Cups.

Some of these Nations, I keep saying it, have more than enough financial clout to get a rival European rugby contest off the ground, and the money to buy in best coaches too.

We don't owe already rich enough nations in their own right a leg up to Tier 1 standards.  Let them put their money where their mouths are - get going and let's see a Europe big enough in population and geographic terms to have two rival Competitions actually have two rival competitons.

 

Who does SecretFly support?

You could easily add Georgia and Romania to the tournament instead of cutting Italy and Scotland AND have each side have five games. Based on this years results;

Conference A (example)

England (2nd seed)
Wales (3rd seed)
Italy (6th seed)
Georgia (7th seed)

Conference B (example)

Ireland (1st seed)
France (4th seed)
Scotland (5th seed)
Romania (8th seed)

Each team plays the others in their conference once. Each team has a minimum of one home game and maximum of two.

Semi-finals

Conference A winner at home vs Conference B runner-up
Conference B winner at home vs Conference A runner-up

Final

Winner Semi-final 1 vs Semi-final 2 (pre-determined venue)

Playoff to determine 3rd/4th place.

Loser Semi-final 1 vs Loser Semi-final 2 (Home advantage to the side who loses by the least points in their semi-final)

To determine seeding for next year;

5th/6th and 7th/8th Place Playoff over Two Legs

3rd Place Conference A vs 3rd Place Conference B (Home and Away)

4th Place Conference A vs 4th Place Conference B (Home and Away)

The only conundrum I have is trying to preserve the current structure where each side is guaranteed two home games one season and three away games the next. Thats easily the hardest part. But an 8 team tournament where each team plays 5 games? Easily done.

Scrumpy wrote:Who does SecretFly support?

The Six Nations champions (and one of two teams to have never finished 6th in the tournament since Italy joined!)

SecretFly...the problem is all the teams are in leagues...the 6 nations B,C,D etc...officially known as the European Nations Cup...which i have post the current divisions and teams above.

A rival 6n ?? That just doesnt make sence.

And aside from Georgia, Russia, Romania, playing the full strenght 6n teams against any of the other European nations teams is going to be nothing more than a try fest.

2 pools...or 4/5 league tournament every 2 years with the 6n teams putting out 'A' or even B teams is the way forward.

notch for me we cant just give the spots to two teams(in your case romania and georgia) and exclude the rest.

let them play off against other rival sides first to be included

But what club?

Daft idea. Scotland will get better under VC once the riddler jawnse has gone. Italy will improve over time. I know it was 100 odd yrs ago but didn't France take 10yrs to win a single game in the 5 nations?

I think secrets that bloke decked out in the St George's cross suit at Twickenham. Just sayin.....

Thats the way Notch.

The 6 nations stays the same in essence...but we incorporate a few more "growing teams" that everyone is crying out for.

mystiroakey wrote:notch for me we cant just give the spots to two teams(in your case romania and georgia) and exclude the rest.

They just did. Georgia are the European Nations Cup winners, Romania the runners up- therefore both have qualified for the next RWC as the best two European sides outside the 6N. It might not be them the year it's expanded of course but I was using this years results as an example.

I'd be happier with relegation from that format- a 7th/8th placed playoff that is home and away between the two worst sides in the competition is part of their five test matches. And then, in the summer, a second two-legged playoff between 8th place and the winner of the European Nations Cup to determine whether the ENC side will be promoted and the 8N side relegated.

Then you could have fair relegation. If you're going to have relegation we need to be definitively sure that a) the team being relegated is decisively worse than the next worst team in the tournament and b) the team that is being promoted is decisively better than the team being relegated. Otherwise it's not a positive for the tournament, it's a negative.

The only fair way to handle the issue of relegation in the Six Nations in this hypothetical format, the current real format or any other is for a two-legged home and away playoff between the two worst teams currently in the competition and then a second two-legged home and away playoff between the loser of that and the best team from outside the Six Nations. That is the only basis where I would accept any form of relegation. You couldn't complain if you lost two home and away playoffs against your peers in a few months. If Italy finished behind Scotland on a very marginal points difference after having one less home game than the Scots and were replaced by a side that isn't better than them, well. Thats ridiculous.

I still wouldn't support relegation by the way. It unnecessarily jeopardises professional rugby in every country but England and France. Even if Italy are relegated that affects everyone in the Pro12. What we need is a structure that supports professional rugby in each 6N country and encourages professional teams to emerge in countries outside the 6N.

Scrumpy wrote:But what club?

Who gives a shoite? Has nothing to do with this.

Notch wrote:You could easily add Georgia and Romania to the tournament instead of cutting Italy and Scotland AND have each side have five games. Based on this years results;

Conference A (example)

England (2nd seed)
Wales (3rd seed)
Italy (6th seed)
Georgia (7th seed)

Conference B (example)

Ireland (1st seed)
France (4th seed)
Scotland (5th seed)
Romania (8th seed)

Each team plays the others in their conference once. Each team has a minimum of one home game and maximum of two.

Semi-finals

Conference A winner at home vs Conference B runner-up
Conference B winner at home vs Conference A runner-up

Final

Winner Semi-final 1 vs Semi-final 2 (pre-determined venue)

Playoff to determine 3rd/4th place.

Loser Semi-final 1 vs Loser Semi-final 2 (Home advantage to the side who loses by the least points in their semi-final)

To determine seeding for next year;

5th/6th and 7th/8th Place Playoff over Two Legs

3rd Place Conference A vs 3rd Place Conference B (Home and Away)

4th Place Conference A vs 4th Place Conference B (Home and Away)

The only conundrum I have is trying to preserve the current structure where each side is guaranteed two home games one season and three away games the next. Thats easily the hardest part. But an 8 team tournament where each team plays 5 games? Easily done.

agree 100pc . u want to expand the game - not got back to 4 nations with relegation !

alive555 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:It isnt looking after your own clubs it being greedy to the detriment to everyone esle. Thats how I see it anyway.

spot on . right on the money.

You two haven't got a clue. Sorry but you have clearly not been following the story. In short, both the the French and English clubs felt they were getting a very uneven one-sided deal. So they asked for change. The other nations clearly didnt want change and refused to compromise. That led to the English clubs walking. Get your facts right before going off on one about us very good natured and reasonable english.

Notch wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:But what club?

Who gives a shoite? Has nothing to do with this.

Just asking like Fly was asking me on another thread, which was taken over by someone with an agenda!

What it is to have friends in high places!