Damien

There are loads of month to month variables, as already discussed, that make it pointless.

Yeah thats quite different. This process is based on final audited accounts that get completed as part of the normal process. It simply does not require clubs to submit monthly accounts. Also if a club has 1 home match in a month it tells people absolutely nothing based on that month. Similarly if a club has 3 matches it completely distorts things. As I said fine in theory but unworkable and pointless in practice.

Ad I said I don't mind it in theory but it is just unworkable and a season isn't a nice even distribution of fans, finances and performance to even make it worthwhile.

Its not really keeping on top of it though. It's a complete waste of time when it's the final figures that count.

Many of the Fandom and finance criteria would vary wildly and then obviously performance would fluctuate. It would be a huge amount of work for nothing

I think that while it sounds good in theory it is impossible on a practical level.

I agree and it's weird thinking that's the case, in a good way. You'd probably have to go back to the early 1990s when anyone could argue the were stronger in the backs than forwards.

As the capacity is less than 20k no.

Yeah for sure. That would definitely be my centre partnership with a full team. Imagine a three quarter line of Young and Johnson on the wings and Wardle and Farnworth as centres. We've never had a set of three quarters with the size and athleticism of those.

I don't really understand why it went pair shaped for him at Huddersfield but I was delighted when we signed him. It was a position we were desperately weak in and he has everything you want in a centre.

I think King did fine at Wigan but I wasn't particularly fussed on him staying or going. He's a fairly average centre who does a job but I thought that he was very much 2nd in the centre stakes compared to Wardle.

It's already gone anyway.

Again this starts with the venues and locations. They are the biggest, single indicator of whether an event is worth going to. All the marketing in the world, which the RFL doesnt do anyway but let's go with it, will not convince many that a match at St Helens or Huddersfield is a match worth spending several hundred to go to or places worth spending a weekend in. Get the venues and locations right and the rest is so much easier. Stop with the bog standard SL grounds in places that don't particularly appeal to anyone who isnt already a RL fan, and not even many of those either. If a match is at the Etihad I would feel this is an event worth going to. Similarly a London venue. Have only one match in each region too and stop trying to sell to the same fans again and again. The most successful formula has clearly been London, Manchester (or Wigan if a Manchester venue is deemed too big or unavailable) and Leeds. To keep ignoring that, and being so risk averse that you are now actually damaging the international game, is sheer incompetence.

It really needs a fresh approach and to get out of the rut it has created for itself. It needs to be bold and confident in its ability as a governing body to sell the sport. The way it keeps doing the same and expecting different results is just madness.

Yeah part of the act. He loves taking on that role and creating a bit of needle.

Jon Wilkin with typical negativity to a question about his thoughts on the game. An immediate despondent and downbeat reaction and talking down the game and just mumbling about Tonga being poor instead of talking England up. No other sports pundits and commentators constantly talk down the sport like ours do.

Harry Smith the man of the match for me for his organisation and steering England around the pitch.

I do think York have done a fantastic job in developing womens Rugby League. They treat the Valkyrie with as an important standalone entity in their own right and show the womens game the respect it deserves. They reap the benefits of this approach as a result.

This is a really simplistic take and completely ignores why people haven't attended. I hope the RFL don't think similarly, and I wouldn't put it past them to, when every failure of this test series has been down to their own incompetence.

But would sell to 17,000 different people and would still be more appealing for many as a weekend away etc.

Australia just annoyingly good as always. I watch many sports but I don't think there is an international team as consistent as Australia. Their play just never seems to dip below 95% of their ability and this never changes no matter who get picked or what the team looks like on paper.

I personally don't think this is a big thing and am unsure how strong the SL brand is anyway. I know it's personal opinion but there is much about it that doesn't really work for me. RL fans will quickly become aware of any rebrand and in the wider sporting world other competitions have encroached on any Super League name recognition anyway. I think with the whole changes in 2025 then it is ripe for rebranding and starting again then.

Yeah it may not be finishing in the best way but he undoubtedly put in far more than he took out. Newcastle spent and did way more than would have been possible without his backing. Leaving the club debt free after that is not something to be knocked at all.

Super League just never works for me because of the sports name being Rugby League. The term Rugby League just creates so many issues. I know people say change it to Super Rugby League but that sounds as much as a RU competition as anything to so with Rugby League. For me it has to be the Rugby League Premiership then the Rugby League Championship. The name of the sport has to be first to clearly identify the sport then the competition and this eliminates any confusion.

Same here