Wellsy4HullFC

2001 design I believe. Brilliant design.

The current logo has that...

Isn't it?

As soon as I looked at that badge, I knew it was Fev. That in itself is a great sign of an effective logo!

Paul Cooke should never have left Hull FC. Ruined his career.

The thing that makes that kit look acceptable (because the design is a bit "out there") is that they've integrated the sponsors and club badge well through just being a uniform white. If they just used the normal colours for them all, it would look horrendous.

I don't mind that London shirt at all. Sometimes less is more. Far better than some of the acid trip shirts we've seen in the past.

Fffff...un? What is this f-un you speak?

Yeah I can't really ever see this happening, but it would be incredible! AI is amazing and scary at the same time!

https://twitter.com/DragonsOfficiel/status/1728114004835594567?t=jK9AeRR97VfqViR9CstOCA&s=19

If Salford don't turn this around, how much will it affect their grade? Will this be grounds to replace them next year? I can see a return for Wakefield and Toulouse next year if this is the case, with London and Salford dropping out.

Had they at least balanced the fixtures out better, this could have been alright. But Saturday is stacked and Sunday is going to be dead in comparison. I think the strategy is hope that some fans from the Saturday stick around for the Sunday. With it being so close to majority of fans' homes, I can't see that happening. I'll be going Saturday, doubt I'll be staying for the Sunday.

It was actually 110-4 Australia v Russia at the Boulevard in the RLWC2000. What a roar when Russia went over! And the boos when Wendel Sailor scored to break the 100

You obviously didn't read the sarcasm in my post. My point being, supporting a SL club shouldn't prevent commenting on the wider game.

Sorry mate, you're one of us Super Greed clubs now who don't care about anything outside our back garden.

Yes. We are outposts, hence why we usually get poor traveling support.

That doesn't avoid them being outposts. They'd still be outposts, but without the guarantee of being in the same division (potentially making them even greater outposts). Another outpost.

The only option is to obviously chuck out Cumbria... Seriously though, until we have more southern clubs, this is unavoidable. The West Cumbrian clubs will always be outposts as there's literally nothing else around there. They either travel to Lancashire or travel to North East (which are similar distances).

How large would your conferences be? It would still have the same issue of clubs in areas having to travel due to concentration of clubs in hotspot areas, mainly West Yorkshire.

It may cover 6 regions, but only 3 of them currently have clubs (NE, Yorks, London). If we ever got to a point where we had an Eastern, South East and East Midlands club in addition, then we'd be in a great position to split to a southern division. As is, even with the greater coverage in theory, in practice, the west division has more travel on average. There's a huge concentration of West Yorkshire pro clubs. That could really do with a counter balance of Lancashire clubs (there's still loads of areas there without clubs). Sometimes regionalisation can show areas to target.

It's not about traveling across the north. It's about traveling FROM the north. The East/West split also splits the outposts so you don't have L1 clubs traveling far and wide to every expansion club that newly enters. Ideally there'd be a push at a southern division, but that would take direction, ambition and a lot of people willing to throw a lot of money away in the short term (which we've actually seen there are a few willing to over the years, but without a coordinated effort it's just a waste of everyone's time).

I did consider that, but at the same time I considered the impact it would have on those clubs in the centre having to flip flop divisions. Sometimes it's better to have a boundary and say "this is where you are" so they can build (on) rivalries. The West having less clubs would also be an indicator for where expansion should possibly aim. There's a pretty large inland imbalance east of the Pennines! That's why I put Toulouse in the East really (although inevitably they'll switch to SL with London). 2 outposts east (London/Toulouse, Newcastle), 2 west (Birmingham, Cornwall). The nucleus of the east is obviously a lot more concentrated than west though with Cumbrian clubs.

Sorry, I know it's another "structure" topic, but thought I'd try and visualise this as travel is often used as a criticism of expansion so the closer we can keep clubs, the less effect this has overall. Going by government regions (i.e. NW, W Mid, SW, and anything west of it like Wales), you get this Western Division: 1. Widnes (Ch 9th) 2. Swinton (Ch 10th) 3. Barrow (Ch 11th) 4. Whitehaven (Ch 12th) 5. Oldham (L1 4th) 6. Workington (L1 5th) 7. North Wales (L1 6th) 8. Rochdale (L1 7th) 9. Hurricanes (L1 8th) 10. Cornwall (L1 9th) Eastern Division (based on NE, Yorks, East, E Mid, London, SE and anything east of it): 1. Wakefield (SL 12th) 2. Featherstone (Ch 1st) 3. Toulouse (Ch 2nd) 4. Bradford (Ch 3rd) 5. Sheffield (Ch 4th) 6. York (Ch 6th) 7. Batley (Ch 7th) 8. Halifax (Ch 8th) 9. Keighley (Ch 11th) 10. Newcastle (Ch 12th) *live in hope! 11. Dewsbury (L1 1st) 12. Hunslet (L1 2nd) 13. Doncaster (L1 3rd) Would that be more manageable? Would it be competitive? Would it make any difference to growth opportunities (i.e. new teams being targeted in the South to open up a southern division in later years)? Just riffing!

It looks like it's had a printing alignment error.

It's a shame rugby league in this country is terrible at promoting events. This would be great in the Etihad on the back of a great season that began with the SL champions beating this very team in their own back yard. We'll take the safe option obviously that will engage very few neutrals due to its "samey" feel.