Wellsy4HullFC

Essentially that's what I'm getting at. But... At some point they'll need some return, so either that comes from increasing the size of the pie and splitting it more ways, or someone else is going to miss out on a slice if it doesn't grow. You can't reduce the slice.

Isn't it just the same as normal relegation? You've kind of suggested a similar model to myself, ie 'pay your own way in'. There has to be a point where they can get something in return though. The 12 figure is based on current affordability. It could grow if more clubs enter. It could be weighted distribution. Basically, it's an attempt to attract those clubs or areas with willing investors and taking away some the barriers to entry. A closed shop is going to be disastrous for the game.

It wouldn't let a new club spend more than they could afford because if they couldn't demonstrate that could afford it in the first place, they wouldn't meet the criteria. As for those in the current top 12 being replaced by a new club, how is that any different than current relegation?

Well not exactly. Just a random musing. If SL entry was dependent solely on meeting the criteria set out by the governing body (leading to a flexible size of the league), would this be problematic or progressive? If central funding distributions were only given to the top 12 clubs (as the league can only afford that currently), then any new club that wanted to enter would have to financially cover themselves for a period until they break into the top 12. Whether the top 12 is worked out by league positions the previous year or on average over x-years (so guaranteed funding is in place) is up for debate. New clubs would then need to have a funding plan in place to cover that period themselves. If a new club overtakes an old club (or a new club doesn't progress enough) and they can't fund themselves at that level without the awarded central distribution, then we've found our top clubs worth investing in and they'll need to take voluntary relegation. Gives everyone a shot that can seriously invest. Keeps out clubs that can't afford that level. No closed shop. I'm sure there are many flaws to this, but thought I'd share it and see if people wish to pick it apart!

This. The idea was to create more international opportunities and invest in the home nations. Obviously this was before the financial collapse of 2008 and austerity governments that followed. Up to 2007, I really thought we were on a real high as a sport over here in terms of progression. If we're not going to bother with the other nations, we might as well just be GB. Not that it would make any difference to revert back now. I really do hope we get our act together.

For comparison... The city of Hull has 1 - Paragon Interchange. East Riding has a further 20 railway stations. Safe to say public transport in Hull is not very extensive!

Fishing where the fish are is great. However, are we in a position to even fish? Does the sport here invest in geographic areas? I think the closest we've come to that is plonking a random event somewhere in isolation. What we need to fish for is benefactors that wish to significantly invest in teams, because the sport doesn't have the resources to invest in them itself. But what bait have we got to attract and hook them? A complicated system of entry to the professional ranks that many feel would shut them out of certain levels is hardly going to do it. I'd be tempted to allow any club into the top flight that can demonstrate the finances to support it independently for a probationary x-amount of years before receiving any central funding based on results. Only fund the top 12 clubs, and if the new clubs overtake the old ones and they can't afford to stay up without the funding, then relegate them. Sorts the haves from the have-nots.

I'd agree that the Samoa tests are the very least offer skillful players on show and a close game (hopefully). Whether the result matters is up in the air: it's always great to win, but other than being the better team, you don't really get anything for winning these types of series (which is why multi-team competitions featuring high-level teams are more attractive to most). The way the international game has been treated recently for these types of fixtures, you know it won't be a big event and the French tests further dissuade people in that manner. If you want people to attend in numbers, this is very important. Otherwise they'll just watch on TV.

What criteria do you judge makes a game potentially exciting? I'd hazard a guess that this doesn't achieve much of it. If it was a potentially exciting game, we'd at least have a start.

If you listed all of the reasons why people attend sports events, then checked that list with this game, and the next game, you'd see why supporters give up.

Which is why I don't think we should have them mid-season. If we can't do them properly, don't do them at all. This is a shame because for once it's actually competitive. At least if the Roses was shambolically organised, it wouldn't reflect directly on the international game.

I did the match officials course back in 2002 as a 15 year old. Wanted to learn more about the rules of the game to help with the playing and I was doing GCSE PE and sports leaders courses at the time so it helped. I refereed several junior games as a teenager before ultimately choosing to just play rather than do both as it was getting a bit much. I reffed the odd friendly whilst at uni and tried going back to junior reffing when I finished uni, but won't lie I struggled with a hangover most mornings at that age Hard to say the best experiences because any that didn't involve abuse was considered a good experience! I reffed a women's 9s game in Malta between Leeds Akkies & Malta which was cool. Worst experience was unfortunately reffing many junior games from a particular Hull-based club for a period of time. The coaches and parents were vile towards me at times, leading to the players being vile also (and thus getting penalised for it) creating a destructive cycle. One particularly bad game involved a coach literally telling his players behind the posts that they were losing because of if the ref, right next to me. I told him in front of his players that they were losing because they were breaking the rules and blaming the ref is not going to help them, and if the abuse from the side line continued either they'd have to leave or I would. At least the comments like "you're only refereeing because you're a failed player" stopped for a bit (I mean seriously, it's a junior league game FFS and I was only early 20s). Suffice to say that game ended with that U14 team losing and one of their players being so wrong up he attacked another player at the full time whistle. Marked it down as a red card and reported it. Only reffed friendlies to help out friends after that. Couldn't be bothered with the hassle.

Have they arranged the postponed fixture between Wigan & Leigh yet? You'd have thought they'd have tried to do it for this weekend considering there are no other free weekends! Could have made it a triple header...

Better than the Perth Jet-Bears?

It's easy to just throw random figures for prize money out there. If people were interested in 9s, they'd have been watching them when hosted.

So now they've taken my first suggestion, I'll give them a year before they claim the suggestion I followed up with. Magic Weekend at every round after!

But what does that look like? If people don't have a clear idea of what they want/expect the cup to be, no one is going to agree.

Completely agree. Martyn Sadler suggested limiting the quota players you could play and I disagreed for exactly the reason you're giving. I don't mind seeding on merit, but you can't then handicap your clubs.

What does the cup really need?

There isn't as much of an expectation for a large crowd at a lower league club. They're very much likely to get a higher than normal crowd, which will look better comparatively than a SL club playing in front of a fraction of the usual crowd in pretty much every televised game.

Pleased with this. This is pretty much exactly what I suggested to Martyn Sadler 3 months ago (enter at Round of 32, all SL sides seeded to play away). *only difference I had was to give SL champions a bye so they could play WCC. A 4-figure crowd at a lower league club looks better than at a SL club. It creates a better occasion and an event to market the club to potential new fans. Also offers variety for SL fans who quite frankly under the old format rarely got to visit lower league club grounds in the cup. The cup seemed to be over in the blink of an eye when you're only running 4 rounds for the top teams.

Keep up, mate. That came out nearly 2 years ago. You've still got the emotional rollercoaster of "The Sign" to come!

On top of that, the comparison isn't made between a club attendance and international attendance when held at Leeds or Wigan when held at London, this giving a better impression of attendance for the market. Getting 12k in London is seen as positive. Getting 12k at Wigan or Leeds isn't.