Wellsy4HullFC

I have to disagree. I think Wembley looks terrible only two-thirds full and highlights that we can't sell out the big game. There's no FOMO. There's no rush to get a seat. It's the exact thing you've recently praised about Hull KR's interest increasing (and I don't disagree). There were no issues of interest dropping in the Cup when it was on the road at Murrayfield, Millennium, Tottenham, even Twickenham. Wembley is not the only selling point of the Cup and the sooner we realise the better. I think the game would benefit far more from rotating the final between key stadia in target areas every year and allow places to bid for it. You never know, Wembley might actually sell out if it's used only for internationals.

Any particular reason for that design? Looks very Barcelona

Give them the trophy.

Didn't know anything about this btw proposed stadium.

I imagine the heat has a lot to do with them choosing later kick off times.

It's a good point. If we're allowing for extra points from a penalty after the winning points, why not a conversion? All adds to the points tally at the end of the season. I still think that should have gone with the "extra play" rule they trialled a few years back where instead of a conversion, you get one more play the ball to score another try to get 8 points instead of 4. Now that would have been chaos!

With less than 2 months to sell tickets and accommodation too.

Allowed? Are you saying they'd fix the game?

It doesn't have to be a indefinite agreement. It's a means to achieve a legitimate aim at that point in time. They'll gain experience, knowledge and save money whilst putting together a better plan to go it alone in the future. If they have no experience, knowledge or plan, they're not going to go far anyway and fans are already dropping off. I think this is a way better model to establish newer clubs rather than traditional clubs, but some may see the benefit temporarily.

Really? Those players have the most to prove.

It's a good question to ask. I'd assume agreements would be in place for a set period, with a period of time known if termination from/lapse of the agreement were to be known, so the parent club will have time to make a new arrangement. What that new arrangement would be depends on what the RFL would allow. I'd like to think this would be a perfect way to grow the number of clubs at this level and the SL club would look to work with a new potential club to this level with RFL approval. I'll give London as an example. Say they get into SL next year. There's no club for miles. They could work at bringing back in Skolars. If Skolars get to a point they wish to go alone, Broncos could work on bringing back in Hemel or another club in the area. You've grown the semi-pro pool then. Same up north. There are tonnes of areas in and around the North West, North East, Midlands.

If they partner up with lower league clubs, they'll get direct support from SL. The player pathway will be better at up. The level of player will be a higher standard. The costs will be far easier to handle. If they have SL ambitions, they can either ignore going into a partnership or leave one if they're in it.

As well as those players in the feeder team wanting to prove that deserve a place in the first team. The downside is it might cause cohesion issues if the teams get too competitive, but that's even better as a viewer.

I'd be interested if the RFL just allowed the option of SL clubs creating new teams in new areas to enter the Lower Leagues to compete alongside current teams. Would pad out the numbers to allow for 2 leagues again, create possible new markets, allow original clubs to keep their independence, keep more semi-pro player pathways.

The Cup structure would be interesting. Teams may need to declare squads up to a certain round and cup-tie players to prevent them swapping. I seem to recall cup-tied players are reset by the quarter finals or something. There'll be a workaround.