skep155

I honestly don't get why we don't publicise this more, is it really that hard to approach one of them for an interview about RL?

Any idea what format the changes will take/some of the proposed changes themselves?

Any new clubs joining championship 1 next year? Anyone heard any rumours? Not expecting anything to happen but it would be great if any clubs did make the step up.

Incidentally, when is this new stand due to be completed? I haven't heard anything about it in a while or seen any pictures of the building work.

I suppose you have to take into account the recession and the fact people don't have a whole lot of spare cash at the moment. I'm hopeful we'll see a significant increase in some averages over the next few years. Leeds redevelopment of the South Stand coupled with better on field performances should see them back up to the 17,000 mark, Wigan have some good marketing going on so perhaps still room to grow? St Helens crowds should get a shot in the arm once they move into their new stadium, then there's Bradford's season ticket offer next year. I suppose Hull KR could break the 10,000 barrier one day if they redevelop Craven Park to the extent that they can pull in some real big crowds for the big games. Any other teams with new stadiums *should* see their crowds rise.

I don't think it's over yet, I personally think they'll attempt one more move before they pack it all in. The season tickets packages not being announced and players not being signed just could be down to not knowing where they are playing next year, no point signing players on the promise of playing in Twickenham if you might be moving to another part of London or out of London all together. I think if there's one certainty, it's that they aren't going to continue under the Harlequins RL moniker for much longer.

What sorts of crowds do they get and where do they get them from? According to wikipedia there's only 10,000 people in the village.

I think our own national stadium would be a big boost to the image of the sport, it's just getting the money for it. Then again I can think of some large stadiums that have been built at a relatively low cost, I think the Stadium of Light (48,000) was built for 23 million.

Your a troll of the highest order.

England, but I was just saying that technically, the game wouldn't die.

I'm not quite as pessimistic. The game is big down in Australia and I can see them making real gains over the next ten years, Perth look a certainty for 2013 and a second NZ team or even a PNG team could follow a few years after. Yes the game could sink into obscurity in Britain, but I'm fairly optimistic that we'll win the war of the codes down under. So in a sense, even in the most pessimistic scenario in Europe, the game would be strong on another continent.

The European Super League was founded with the intention of being a European competition with continental teams playing in it, it was never intended to be an entirely domestic league. Only in Rugby League would people propose kicking a team with decent crowds and a decent stadium to the curb because they bring 200 less away fans than Salford, Huddersfield or Harlequins. I

Just shows the retarded mentality were going up against. What's the point in anything that isn't immediately successful? Let's just go back to semi-pro and play the Grand Final at Post Office Road.

What people advocating this idea don't seem to understand is that we currently don't deserve more than scraps. Let's see it from Sky's perspective, they are essentially an entertainment industry, they are going to hand out the most money to the sports that entertain (or have the potential to entertain) the largest number of people and sell the most number of Sky dishes. They aren't going to give 50 million to the World Curling Federation because people wouldn't subscribe to their channels to watch it, and hence they would lose a lot of money. They have to operate this way or there is no Sky at all because they go bankrupt. No where in the real world would you demand to be paid significantly more than you are, but offer nothing knew to the company and insist that your job should remain exactly the same. You can ask for a promotion but you have to be willing to do something that makes it worth the company's money. There's a limit to how many terms you can dictate to your employer, you can't turn up to a job interview and say "well I don't think you need an investment banker, I think you need a mortgage advisor, so you should pay me to do that instead". What you are advocating, is essentially dictating to Sky what they should want from us, retreating to the M62 (From Sky's perspective this means the potential for a decrease in subscriptions to their sports channels, and hence a loss of money), yet at the same time asking to be paid more money, and given more promotion than we get currently. Then if they refuse we should tell them to stuff it and go live on the dole. Get real, we wouldn't even have time to tell them to stuff it, they would metaphorically say "clear your desk, your fired, get the f*ck out of my office and don't come back tomorrow".

Allegedly they are going to sign more British players instead of Aussies 'cause they come cheaper.