Maximus Decimus

What a fantastic reply. Why would I explain why the 3 x 8 might work when I don't think it will? I think it's artificial, convoluted and desperate. It says wonders that Scottish football were the only other sporting league looking at this. As a Widnes fan obviously I am going to use my own club's experience first and foremost but Widnes are one of a number of clubs in a similar position. First off it is ridiculous to claim that this year we didn't aim for the top 8, as if we consciously decided to finish in the lower reaches. Up until about round 15 we still had an outside chance of making it. You are arguing the incredibly simplistic notion that fans and sponsors just want to see their clubs win games. This is an obvious nonsense as relegated teams always see a drop in attendance despite inevitably winning more games in the lower division. The middle 8 will inevitably be seen as a mini-relegation. London, Salford, Widnes and Cas fans wouldn't suddenly come out of the woodwork because of the prospect of beating Featherstone and Sheffield. This isn't just speculation, Swiss Football has seen attendances increase at the top level 50% since they dropped this model and this is what the spokesman of the Swiss League had to say: In RL too often we try to tell fans how they should think about something, with licensing we tried to tell lower division fans that they should just be happy watching games for the sake of watching RL. Now it looks like we'll be trying to tell fans of the middle 8 that they should be happy winning games. The reality would be that the bottom 4 SL fans would switch off after they failed to make the 8. I think this would in practise work worse than in Football. Football has an element of unpredictability that RL doesn't have, if there is a mismatch in RL it is shown up easily so I think there would be little fluidity in the leagues. The problem will still remain that the initial 12 SL clubs will be a lot stronger than the second 12. They will have more money, attract better players and be in a higher standard of competition. The bottom 4 will still face weaker teams full of part-timers because there is no way RL can sustain 24 full-time professional clubs. If I was looking at it from a purely Widnes perspective, I might be in favour of 3 x 8. As long as we weren't relegated next year we would be in a good position to stay in SL for a long time. The top 12 will be infinitely better off and it will only be clubs facing financial ruin that will end up being relegated.

You cannot compare the 3 x 8 to the one-divisional league, it's a nonsense. The middle 8 league is the worry under this system, and it has been borne out in the one incidence where this was tried in Switzerland. The middle 8 league struggled for profile and to get anybody interested. For the bottom 4 teams in Super League it will be the result of a bad season and I'm sorry but beating lower division sides after failing in the top division is not going to bring fans or sponsors in. For the teams in the 2nd tier coming up, they will likely face regular and heavy beatings against clubs that have better players than them. The problem is that at a club like Widnes, Salford, Castleford etc the prospect of being in the middle 8 at the end of the season might result in fewer season tickets being sold and budgeting issues. It's idealistic and a PR disaster in my view.

This is exactly the sort of idealism that was banded about pre-licensing and it is just that, idealism. The reality is that there just aren't enough good players for the number of clubs to be competitive. Sadly, 5 years of security, forward-planning and regular competition hasn't resulted in the likes of Salford, London, Cas, Hull Kr or Wakey becoming any more competitive and successful, if anything some of they were more successful in the year before licensing. The point I'm making is that when licensing was brought in this is exactly what was argued that it would achieve like we see in the NRL. The reality is that the same strong clubs have monopolised the top positions because they still have more money and attract the best players. This will happen with the 3 x 8 system, the stronger clubs will almost always make the top 8 and the likes of Fev or Sheffield will get comfortably beaten by the bottom 4 from SL year on year because they won't be able to attract the best players and probably won't be playing in a full time league for the rest of the year. They'll only get a shot if a team implodes like Halifax did in 2003. I admire your positivity but I've heard it all before, another example is the 4 Nations and how it would improve Wales/France through regular competition. The problem here is that the 3 x 8 system could do unfortold damage to the game, it's a real risk and not one worth taking in my opinion.

I think this is quite an idealistic way of looking at it. In theory, the salary cap and licensing would have produced this evening out across the division but it still hasn't in anything like the way we would hope and perhaps more importantly for this concept, it hasn't spread the talent across the division and has in fact worsened it by increasing to 14. I still think we would find the top 6 clubs being a lot better than the bottom 6 clubs and that would include those making the bottom 2 of the 8. There just isn't the talent pool in British RL to have a competitive 8 clubs.

Unless there is a change in the strength of Rugby League clubs across the board (and I don't think there will be for some time), the top 8 might not be a great place for the bottom 2 clubs. Before Widnes went off the boil, we were in the run in to make the top 8. However, if we theoretically made the top 8 after the split I've little doubt that it would actually be a pretty miserable existence in the top 8 as it would be a run of almost certain defeats many of them large. This would only get worse as it would be these teams that would struggle with the regular intensity.

They also tried it in Switzerland who ended up returning to a more normal system. An official urged the Scots not to do it and said whilst it made for more excitement at times the middle league was essentially cast out and nobody was interested in it.

The season ticket culture is the biggest contributing factor to low playoff and CC attendances in comparison to SL games. Put it this way the crowd at the Wigan-Leeds semi-final decider last year was lower than for a routine home game against London. It is impossible to imagine that there was more interest in the town of Wigan for the London game than the Leeds game. The problem is that you have approximately 10,000 or so people that automatically have a ticket for every home game because they paid out in full. So for the London game you only have approximately 3,000 people paying for that game whereas for the Leeds game you are selling 12,000 tickets. For whatever reason there is clearly a significant portion of that 10,000 that are not willing to pay for any extra matches. I think only a small part is laziness and is probably more to do with the habit of paying for games especially when you can watch on TV or in the pub. If you pay out in a big chunk, paying for RL games stops being a part of your regular outgoings. So when a game comes up that you weren't necessarily expecting you are having to find the £22 odd quid out of your regular outgoings to pay for the game. If you bring a family you are multiplying that. A season ticket takes out the will I/ wont I decision because you've already paid and with SKY it's all to easy to save a bit of money and watch in on tele. The answer is a hard one and probably not answerable. As for the playoffs, a return to a decent and valuable playoff system would at least help matters.

From what I've seen they appear to have made a decision and they're doing all this consulting to make it look like it's been thoroughly debated on. It would be a brave man to suggest that any where near a majority are in favour of it.

You equally cannot compare the NRL to Super League. The profile of the sport over there is massively different to ours. It's the number one sport in 2 of the top 3 cities in Australia. I'm not sure we're the number 1 sport in any city of the much larger UK. Melbourne Storm are nowhere near the success they should be. Without multiple titles they would have likely been dropped years ago, they still get as low as 12,000 in a city that claims to be the biggest sporting city in the world. This is similar to a very poor Super 14 team and way lower than any of the 8 or so AFL sides.

Nice and civil there, I'm sure all his other antipodean cousins agreed didn't they?

They are if the potential is there. Are London's problem solveable? Especially when you consider that they could literally go out of business at any minute. If their owner pulls the plug do we replace them again? Maybe now isn't the time to support a London club in the top division. I think short and medium term those clubs would do a better job. There is little more demoralising in RL than seeing a top-level game played in a stadium with 3 closed sides and a handful of people there. At least those clubs provide a bit of passion and the odd semi-decent crowd.

I'm not saying that the RFL are playing down anybody. However, London's inclusion above other clubs is largely because of their potential. The chances of their ever fulfilling this diminish all their time. Let's be honest, they haven't drawn a decent crowd for probably a decade aside from an 8,000 crowd against Saints which was their first ever game as Harlequins and clearly included many Quins RU fans giving it a go. The last time they had decent crowds was 1996/7 and their crowds are the lowest they have ever been in Super League. Things are going backwards rather than forwards. When they made the final in 99 they brought 9,000 from memory. I'd dread to think what they would bring now. Halifax, Fev or Leigh would perform marginally better but it's hard to justify why London get a permanent place and they never get a place. For all the good they apparently do (and I think it's all debatable), they do harm to the image of the game in these communities and others who see a failing club with crowds lower than their own allowed a place at the top table. This is justifiable as long as they are good for the game and as long as they have the potential to do something great. I'm just not sure that that they have this potential anymore.

I think there is a genuine argument to be had about London. I've always been pro-London because of the reasons given but the last few years I have really started to doubt whether they ever can be even a moderate success. It's all well and good saying that they do a similar job to Fev and Fax but London are a ticking timebomb. There simply isn't the money to sustain them in their current form and within the next few years there will be another crisis there unless things change. My point is that if the potential for their success isn't there and I'm not sure it is, then their perpetual inclusion ahead of teams such as Fax and Fev is grossly unfair. There is only so long potential can be used as an argument. The potential of the new stadium has arguably kept Salford going for years but the move has done nothing to bring out their apparent potential. It's taken a wealthy backer to get anything going there.

The doubt is of course whether a genuinely successful London club is a possibility.

They've done really well. However it's hard to say whether they'll dominate. Leeds had an off year by their high standards, Saints were missing both of their main half-backs and Wire are getting better every year. Add to that other clubs that might improve year on year and it makes for an interesting time. They'll start next year as favourites but they won't have it all their own way.

They were also the original colours of Widnes rugby. Saints should go for all-white next year. Will go well with their new nickname, 'The Jimmys.'

Best team this year, without a doubt. Congratulations. Looking forward to next year already.

I can't believe somebody mentioned Paul Sculthorpe. He was our one class player over a bad period. I remember when we lost 64-10 being embarrassed that he was on our side, because he was the one that didn't deserve it.

Apparently there is still 6-7k tickets left but only singles or doubles. Don't have a source just internet rumour so it could be balderdash.

It has a few times actually.

Virtually won us the game that. Awesome tackle.

I'm certain they will. This is RL and Saints fans will treat it with the respect it deserves. We all make mistakes and Terry was no different. RIP.

Wow, I'm totally shocked and never saw that coming. You have no point, you are in essence, pointless.

When I first heard about it I was well sceptical of Twitter I just didn't see the point. Now I love it, reading what celebrities and RL players get up to, even getting the odd reply. The best RL related one came last night from....Robbie Savage! "I'm just a thin earl crabtree,, thin earl crabtree"

One of these looks like the badge of a modern sport and one doesn't. To me the Melbourne Victory badge is simple and classy and the Leeds one looks amateurish.