Maximus Decimus

Pretty sure he means that an average of 11k doesn't mean that the same 11k go every game and in fact the reality might be as many as 30k will go at some point during the year.

I'm the same, it doesn't make any sense to criticise a club for being able to take so many more to a final, especially as this happens in all sports. For instance I remember going the pub for Liverpool's Champions League finals and they were far more packed than for typical league games, these weren't glory hunters. The interest is inevitably higher amongst all types of people. As for your other point, I could use my own experience as a case in point. For me RL is a family thing and there are about 7 who would go during the course of a season. Now it's very rare that all 7 of us would go at once, and sometimes it might even be none of us who would make it. For a final, especially a Challenge Cup final, all of us would go and there would be interest from other family members who nearly never go like my sisters and my mum. There's nothing wrong with this at all. A final is a final and attracts people who only have a minimal interest. If Wire did managed to get 30,000 fans to go games every week, then they would be able to bring 70,000 to a final. It's just the way of the world.

What nonsense. Wakefield and Salford are no more Super League clubs than a few of the Championship clubs. Take one of the most ridiculed Super League teams ever, Leigh, who despite winning 2 games if I remember correctly, got a higher average than Salford will this year. The Championship is a massive come down but there is nothing special about those clubs that they should be saved at the expense of Widnes, Fax, Leigh, Fev or Barrow for instance. Put it this way if Fax had been in Super League the last 3 years and Wakey hadn't, nobody would be saying that Fax have to be replaced by Wakefield. I think Castleford would cope best with demotion as they are the strongest of the 3 who best retained their fans in the Championship last time. The other two could potentially implode and never get back to Super League again. However the same could have happened to the teams I've mentioned above and still might given another 3 years in the Championship. It is also not a reason to demote Castleford purely because they'd cope best. I've said this before, but if Salford are not in their stadium for the 2012 stadium then they should go. If after all the stadium is so certain, then they will be a shoe in for 2015. If they do and the stadium situation is the same then I'm afraid Wakefield should probably go on balance.

They would be more likely to turn out in the Championship if they had the prospect of facing Leeds, Wigan, Saints and Hull.

Of course people are more likely to attend finals. In RL a final is a family day out that everybody wants to get to. No matter what this is great news for the sport and shows that the Challenge Cup still has a great pull. Club Wembley will always be the same problem but a sellout between 2 genuinely big teams should guarantee a good take up.

No wonder they've done so poor on the pitch if they hadn't even realised they were playing on the same field as the other clubs around them.

The only problem with your idea's are that they would require a great deal of organising and there's nothing to stop a rival sport, say Rugby Union from doing exactly the same on a bigger scale. Then we're just in the same boat as we are now.

Does the fact that Barrow have now been comfortably beaten by Widnes and are now only 4 points ahead of Widnes mean that they are now not ready for Super League? Many people were saying that they deserved a chance because of what they had done on the pitch in comparison to Widnes and that Widnes' inclusion would be a farce. Just goes to show why you can't solely base licensing on what happens on the pitch, Barrow are no more or less ready than they were 2 or 3 weeks ago ffs and neither are Widnes. Form is temporary while class is permanent. Also it hopefully goes some way to dispelling the idea that we purposefully have put out a weak side this year because we knew we'd get a franchise. We put out as competitive a side as last year that have had problems this year. Now we're getting players back and playing quite well, we could yet throw a spanner in the works of a couple of clubs in their march for the Championship.

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/ne...L_Catalans.html

You're first point is related in no way to what I was talking about. In Union and Football there are many many more competitive international teams than in RL, so it is less likely to get old. Winning is a real achievement. Beating Australia would be but once it's been done then it's been done, there's no other level to go to.

I don't disagree with you but it's not the only answer like some would believe. Many people seem to think that we would see something along the lines of England RU in 2003. We still wouldn't get a fraction of this. Plus, isn't this a big reasoning behind licensing? To get more English playing the game so that we can beat the Aussies. It's not like the RFL are doing nothing now.

And as he pointed out himself, we just get wrote off as chippy northerners. We don't have the soapbox from which to shout our game up. Union doesn't need to try, the media do it for them and in certain area's such as internationals there is a genuine national interest in the outcome.

Is that exactly what he says or just the spin you would like to put on it? He talks about poorly thought through expansion clubs and to be honest just because they are expansion clubs doesn't mean that they weren't poorly thought out. A failing expansion club such as Quins probably does the image of our game more harm than it does good. It certainly does more than anything else to give the impression that RL is simply a northern game as it struggles so badly in the south. Face it, if Quins were a northern RU club we would be laughing at them, claiming it proves that the north doesn't want RU.

I think this is about more than the ditching of one person, it's about the profile of the whole game and it is diminishing. A successful national team is part of the answer but even that is only going to do so much because there is only really 1 maybe 2 international teams that it is worthwhile beating. People would soon see through this.

Wasn't there an 8 page pullout in the People for this?

Where exactly is this said?

In 2004 prominent people were talking about relocating them because crowds had dropped massively. You can't budget for Grand Final success. Heck if Quins had appeared in 4 Grand Finals in a row then I reckon they'd have a pretty decent set up down there.

The difference is that they have the money to do it. Their clubs are also entering a high profile competition that gets regular national media coverage. That said Melbourne aren't a roaring success and without their Grand Final wins, they would have also likely been relocated.

The lack of relegation and promotion is a problem but so was the previous system. A return to promotion and relegation is not a simple answer. Even when we had it there were numerous problems and crowds in the lower divisions had been dropping. Most clubs already didn't see Super League as achievable because they were too small. The game is hard to play and the RFL should run different levels where there are easier versions such as 5m and tag. Working it's way down the country is an ideal but not realistic, you need places to actually want Rugby League and you can only move where they do. A lot of work has been done in schools and I read in a teacher paper last year that RL was actually the fastest growing sport in schools. It is now played in 33% of secondary schools in comparison to 66% for Union, which I didn't think was that bad considering our geographical isolation.

It's been mentioned before and isn't necessarily a terrible idea but an unlikely one. It would have to be much more than a renaming though. It would need to be two divisions of 10 sides with similar level salary caps. They would also need to have similar amounts of TV coverage. The reality is that the lower division would be seen as a lower division. This would still create the same issues with Quins, Cats and Crusaders, and their relegations would put their existence in doubt. The threat would be that we would simply be reducing our pool of strong teams again by dropping it 10.

They'd probably love it and rename the sport or something. 'Australian Rugby Footie'

Yeh I left out Australia because it's a slightly different situation. They do get the media exposure and regular national TV coverage. It's also seen off the threat of Union and Soccer looks like it's going by the wayside too. I worry for the game in the UK. The diehards will never let it die but I think we're fewer in number than we like to think we are. Of the thousands attending Super League I doubt more than 15% would watch it exclusively. We're not finished yet, it gives me some comfort that many many people have before written the sport off but when I look at the facts and try to leave out emotion it looks very difficult to see a way out for the game over here. Despite outwardly appearing stronger than many times in the past if you scratch below the surface the signs are possibly more worrying. The decline of the media presence cannot be underestimated, we have also concentrated our resources on a few bigger clubs which has seen a reduction in our geographical spread. This is one of the reasons I often think we shouldn't write off smaller passionate clubs like Leigh and Halifax. Whilst we obviously need to expand and within Super League, we also need to ensure the retention of as many passionate fans as possible, as this is one of our great strengths. All we can do is keep plugging away and play to our strengths. We need to offer a decent alternative to Football and Union and a sold-out Challenge Cup final is a good start. What I was trying to get at in the above post is that we are starting to look less of a decent alternative in comparison to Union if it carries on growing domestically at its current rate.

In response to the general article, it is correct. Rugby League has shown remarkable resilience over the years against the odds but ironically I think we are in a more precarious position than ever before and I think there is a real chance that within a generation we will be a collection of diehards watching with a few hundred others. It's not particularly anybody's fault and the most worrying thing is that there's possibly very little that anybody can do about it. The world has changed and is global and it is these sports that are swamping everything else. People want to be seen as superstars and get the money and fame associated with it. RL is not in a good position when it comes to this. I've said it before but it's remarkable that we're still here. I know of no other sport in our position, that still survives to a decent size despite little national coverage and no special place within the establishment. The two other localised sports that I can think of; GAA and AFL, are under less threat because they are so big in their respective countries and do hold a special place within the establishments. The biggest problem and it pains me to say this, is Rugby Union. Despite being a poorer version of the sport it has sorted itself out on the professional front and is now a much larger sport especially internationally. Whereas we used to have a bigger domestic game they have overtaken us on this and are continuing to grow. It is this difference in the domestic games that may eventually facilitate this demise. We struggle to hang on to our best players now but it is only going to become more difficult when the gap between the two sports grows. They have the media on their side and as such create genuine national sports stars, some who earn in the millions. They offer a European competition that is genuinely interesting and even now a domestic game with bigger crowds than Super League. If I was a 17/18 year old talented RL player and not so staunch in my RL ways, then I would definitely consider switching. Players are doing as well and at a younger age. Football is of course a massive issue for any heartland club but there is definitely a niche there for other sports, I just hope it isn't Union that eventually fills it. I don't like the above facts and they do worry me but it is what I honestly feel. I used to think the sport was so good that it couldn't die and once it was given exposure it would rapidly expand but it isn't the case. You just have to look at the game in France as to what can happen when Union gets so big in comparison to League. Anybody who is any good is poached. You just have to look at the game in and around Manchester to see how quickly we can become a thing of the past. The most annoying thing in my opinion is that as a sport we are going about things in a generally good way with setting down grassroots and the like. We just aren't expanding fast enough in comparison to another similar sport. We need some sort of a big break, like the game taking off in a couple of other nations. The USA would be one such place but that in reality would be a pipe dream.

They'd hardly be squealing with delight and it's not analogous. I presume they were saying it had done damage losing strong clubs in London whereas we've pretty much never had one. The Capital is of course important but Quins are hardly cracking that nut.

Your joking right? Steve going gives Barrow an extra 10 points. Crowd 9305.