Dave T

Hmm. So this sponsorship was such a bad decision that you wrote to the club to complain, but anyone else complaining about this sponsorship is just having a dig at your club?

Firstly, it was a tongue in cheek post, but I would add that your post stood out as maybe the only one I've read here that absolutely could be read as any kind of defence of P&O's actions (or downplaying rather). So all the above is commendable, but the defence of P&O was jarring.

This isn't an interview for a major political party spin doctor mate

It's a weird take to criticise RL fans here. The story here is that RMT were criticising the deal, this wasn't just RL fans having a moan.

Why you underestimating us?

To be fair, there are some good points there about player welfare. But while he may be disappointed he has to act better than he did.

I have to agree here, Burgess shouldn't be behaving like a child. It doesn't really matter whether Hull can overrule the 'punishment' we made a mistake, that's tough. Sure, ask the question, maybe even have a word if you're unhappy, but this whole protest thing and kicking off is classless

Tonight is a perfect example of what I refer to when I say we can maybe benefit from multiple Friday games. Wire v Hull has often been televised and poor. If that's the case tonight, you can easily stay engaged for the 2hrs with the other matches as well. So on that basis I think fans are more likely to stay engaged and commit to the night's viewing instead of drifting to other things. Friday night is SL night. But anyway, Wire v Hull on tv for me this week.

You could be right in that I am being overly generous, because some of the things that are either not explained well, or don't make sense are challenging. Having an A grade means little really. It doesn't guarantee you a slot at all, as one of the amendments is to score everyone annually. It offers zero protection, which was one of the points of an A grade. And as you point out, we have 12 clubs, whilst they have said when they get 12 grade A clubs they will look to expand, that won't happen overnight - if we get 15 grade A's this year we won't expand to 15 clubs for 2025. In reality, the gradings of A, B and C mean nowt. It's basically a ranking system where you need to be in the top 12 for Super League. I also don't accept the argument from people that 'if we ever get to tge stage of 15 grade A club's then we are doing great' - whilst that may be true, I think we have set the bar relatively low, and you do actually have to have the mechanics of what you'd do with those clubs. It is negligent to be relaxed about it and say we'll think about it when it happens. When I say broadly fine, I'm more referring to the areas of focus - facilities, engagement, performance, finances - they are OK.

I have some sympathy with your view. Not that I agree with you fully, but I share the view that this system hasn't been implemented very well, I think it's broadly fine, but as long as you have weird metrics, you do rather undermine your system and people will buy in less. I like the fact it has forced some clubs to take action, but it hasn't addressed the most basic criticism of P&R, which was the volatility of P&R.

I often make this point. People don't always explicitly say exactly what you say above, but it is rather ignored that we have had 24 clubs over the years. I think being unhappy about individual events is fair, but that can't be the whole narrative here. And when people talk about favourites etc. we have to include Oldham and Workington as they were original members as you say. Sure, be peed off that you felt your club was shafted in 1994, but the game didn't pull up the drawstrings and exclude these clubs.

On para 3 - IIRC the protests were dampened somewhat as an announcement came that day that the merger was off and there was an assumption that we would both be in SL. I think as the details emerged and the approach of the top 10 being in it became clear that Widnes were out, but the protest had been quashed. Had that detail emerged in advance, I think things could have been quite nasty.

I don't suppose this is a particularly complex discussion. People have different circumstances and tastes and will ultimately put different value on the same thing. I think Sky Sports is brilliant, the OP doesn't - that's fine, and not really much to discuss tbh.

It is perfectly reasonable for people to believe that clubs being placed into SL outside of the standard process that was in place at that time benefited from 'favouritism'. It may not be the best word to use, but it makes the point. Let's remember that this is in the context of P&R being the mechanism for the vast majority of the last few decades. PSG, London, Gateshead, Catalans, Leigh all benefitted from being hand-picked outside of normal process. I think that is understandable that some people don't like that when we have many clubs who have been fighting for promotion to SL and have never made it. But, that is a very narrow way of looking at this, because when you look at the whole picture and the context, it is more complex than just favouritism. Let's be honest, many clubs given a place in SL were also treated poorly and that is an outcome of poor leadership and strategies imo.

Well, yeah to be honest. The ones at the top of the IMG table are the ones with more fans, viewers, sponsors etc. I think there are plenty of nuances to this debate, and I really don't like this weird hybrid system they've gone with, but people really do overstate the benefits of relegation battles.