gingerjon

I don't know - and I'm sure it will be a sometimes yes, sometimes no argument - but they are simpler. No need for player development, no need for any longer term commitment, no need for anything other than, "Can you do a job for me this weekend?" It is completely explicable. It is no way to run a sport.

But the whole point of IMG and the twelve-year-plan is that is about doing the basics over the longer term in order to (a) take power away from the clubs who are understandably short sighted, and (b) open up more income generating opportunities. That has now been wrecked and there is nothing to replace it with anything like that ambition. This takeover is all about making rugby league in England the next speedway or stock car racing.

Bingo. It is staggeringly simple. The clubs will vote for whatever is easiest for them in the moment regardless of any impact that has on anything else. We all know why they will do this. It's not some kind of revelation or wisdom. But if we actually want the game to be successful then compulsion to be bigger than "what's the best team I can get out this weekend" is necessary.

Lionesses look like it will be down to beating Wales. Currently four up on a very overwhelmed Dutch side.

It’s like that time his girlfriend disagreed with him

There are no development costs. It’s the cheap option.

The argument being made by the clubs is that it is cheaper.

I can only speak for locally and what I see but women’s participation in RU seems to have stalled locally whilst it is absolutely surging in soccer and still building in cricket.

I think, like when it comes to attendances, we should do the right thing and get absolutely livid that anyone would run with good news and spend post after post undermining it. This is genuinely stunningly good. We haven’t invested as much as we could and the mood music is all about head injuries - and yet we’re going beyond treading water and potentially on a significant upward curve. This is something to shout about.

It's even more unbalanced than that in the RL to soccer comparison but, as a reference point, the clubs are blanching at paying English players 80k a year. The average League Two salary is £104k a year. Once you're hitting an 'allowance' of around 10 players, in my opinion, you may as well not have the allowance at all. It's just a fig leaf. It's already clear that the focus is on the immediate here and now with absolutely no concern for anything longer term.

It's probably also worth saying that the RFL do not operate under any kind of 'set precedent' system for this - and nor does any other sport. Everything is a case by case basis in line with the operational rules etc

That increase is incredible in several senses of that word.

For years they said Asians would never like soccer or people from the Caribbean only cricket. And then people actually supported those trying to engage those communities and it turned out that’s just what racists think. So, no community is off limits. You just need the will, support and patience.

I can’t be bothered going over the numbers again but by any honest, national metric - with the exception of column inches and attendances for a small number of internationals per year - soccer has been ahead of RU in Wales for at least decades and probably forever.

Indeed. But Warrington have essentially more than doubled in terms of average gate - and more than that in terms of visibility etc - since the start of Super League. And, unlike, say, Bradford, that has stayed true even when not winning. Maybe Hull FC would be another example.