Ackroman

RL attendances have been on the decline since the 1950's. In fact they mirrored pretty much exactly what has happened in football. People don't watch live sport in anything like the numbers. These days only sponsorship can fill the void and exposure is what sells. In some respects individual clubs become irrelevant because it is the "competition" which sells unlike in the 1950's when it was the game on the day. It is in fact a lazy way of making your money which tells us much more about our society and where RL fits into the big picture. Super League is designed to sell RL in this country. It doesn't matter who the clubs are, or what stadiums they play in, so long as it looks good on TV and can attract sponsors. Who gets relegated is for the few of us left who care. I would also argue that clubs going bust in your showcase competition puts sponsors off even more, so the easiest way of shuffling these blunders under the carpet is to have "relegation", rather than some sham licence that passes from one unknown entity to another. "So what". Only a couple of thou in Wakefield or Leigh care. Th other 250 thou watching on TV don't. A lot of the arguments made about retraction to the heartlands is also misinterpreting the reality. The game never got beyond them because it has to be underpinned by participation and the cart was put before the horse with that one. I think the root taken now has far more participation in expansion areas than ever before. It is a fact that to showcase RL in this country it has to look good, with passionate fans and players of a standard. If that means you have to rely on your heartlands to create that competition then what do people expect? Dr Koukash could have bought London, or Coventry, or Bath but he didn't, he bought Salford. What does that tell you about the games strengths? P&R is for those of us left who care. The RFL have at least offered something back for the fans. That's how I see it anyway. There's no other logical reason to do it except for moving your deadwood out of the eyeline of sponsors.

I've changed my opinion. I used to think SL should be 10 teams, with a second division of 10 with 2 up 2 down. This was based on historical "evidence" about P&R, which suggests to me that the divisional split was too low in the table. This caused a lot the problems many detractors of the system like to point out. Basically the elite league wasn't really elite and the clubs gaining promotion were too far off the pace. I then thought the 3 x 8 was a good development, again because of the historical evidence from the one divisional structure which showed clubs at this point in the table were more matched than a split in divisions would suggest. These same clubs would now have to earn the right to play the elite far more than when they earned direct P&R into a bulging top division. So I like the 3x8 regardless of the money. RL has got 8 elite clubs, 8 clubs that could be and the rest that may be. Actuals, Probables, and Possibles.

Quite.

Pretty much all sports have an elite few who can win the title. The rest are also rans. The fact is though that these clubs have a right to compete with each other, not be segregated arbitrarily. In many, many examples, clubs focus on being the best at where they are at. At least with P&R this allows for limited ambitions to be realised. Just because the same club cannot win the title does not make it less worthy a cause to invest in or achieve. To continually focus on a elite top 8 as an argument to put down ambition is boring. How many of us are considered in the elite in what we do? How many of us are achieving our potential? Surely the second measure is more valuable to our motivation and true worth than focussing on something beyond our reach. How many of us stop in bed because we can't be elite? It would be worthless to try if all investment fell to the feet of those considered elite, and not within reach of those who can better themselves. This is why I find the argument over elite v underchiever or whatever you wish to call it, vacuous, disingenuous and frankly it bores the pectorials off me.

..now we have the thread merged my comment looks somewhat out of context. We didn't need a new thread, hence what I put so back off.

.....here we go again...round and round and round

The new structure is good, the investment is good. Introspection and waffling is Canute-esque. God luck with the miserableness,

I agree the grass has always been blue but greener on the other side

Wakefield now there's a club who have a great opportunity, sadly they tend to ignore the kids they work with.

With respect to the money argument, it's the closeness in quality of the players that will make the system work. SL is struggling to hold on to world class talent and even the more humble clubs in SL will struggle to attract even second rate antipodeans due to the exchange rates and the money awash down under. The competition, for the foreseeable future will be based on your ability to build a squad not buy one. It puts the obvious candidates under a lot of pressure because they've relied too heavily on buying power rather than building their club. I don't for instance, think that some of the recent pre-season games are a fluke, they'e an indication of these differences playing out.

I'm just a fan of RL, I like the community based aspect to it and now that I'm living so far beyond it, I miss it. However, I didn't really appreciate the politics, even though I am a born and bred league fan. League Express as a format was always my bible but with this topic, the agenda's are too obvious and too leading. I have accepted all previous structures to the game, all previous opinions, I've kept going and even brought my kids to the game with a 160 mile round trip. However, I object to censorship, censorship that is too sensitive. If the Editor of LE has to be protected when he comes on here frothing his opinion and baiting Fev fans so readily, then you are welcome to him. I accept that this forum has to be paid for but I would prefer to pay than be led by the nose, or cut from the debate because I think the rhetoric is beyond editorial licence.

The clubs have relied on the structure of the sport for too long to generate interest, rather than their own momentum and ideas at attracting punters. Since the main body of clubs now have an opportunity to rise and fall (rather than boom or bust) I hope to see clubs going at the marketing like hammer and tongs rather than using the 3x8 as a selling point because frankly licencing didn't sell itself, and I would argue Super League hasn't either, certainly not in the licencing period. In conclusion the 3x8 isn't the be all and end all, it oils the wheels a bit better to sell, sell, sell at Championship level and for SL to get sponsorship and more TV interest. This IMO is where the measure of success should be, not whether 3x8 is "understandable".

Has RL given birth to Frakenstein's baby yet?

Whatever. P&R is happening. Come back in 5 years with the facts about P&R from 2014 onwards.

You can however be creative. I've said this before. Season tickets can be applied to the whole game, including the Challenge Cup, it just needs the clubs to let someone go away and draw up a proposal.

Free speech is one thing. Repetitive off topic rubbish is another. I'm not surprised after 130 odd pages that there's little sense left, as I'm dizzy from all the recycling of myths, misinformation and peeing competitions over crowds or whatever. You yourself have attempted it enough times banging on about the viability of 2 clubs in Hull and mergers. Enough is Enough! The chairman of the top clubs, the CHampionship clubs and the RFL accept P&R is coming back, they are likely to accept 3x8. It does no-one any credit by repeatedly using the thread to create disharmony for the sake of it. I'll leave this thread for those who need it most if they refuse to set up one of their own. With any luck it'll get locked. Edit: and if it does go t1ts up. By all means gleafully start a thread on the topic.

It's articles like this that make it clear much of the arguments against PR are a waste of time. It's happening. By all means come back and say I told you so, if it's goes wrong but regarding the restructuring of the game it is definitely not on topic. The topic was and is much more about the way the game creates more fluidity between different levels of the sport. I suggest, if you wish to do so, create a new thread entitled "all is doomed with P&R" and you can form the RL self flagellation society against P&R at the same time. Those in favour of a closed shop SL should also move across and ask for affiliation.

I never got passed the first line in the second paragraph. If that was the method I'd be a milionaire.

Those clubs start with a W not an H.

That's a couple of times you've quoted me there. If I've hit a nerve I apologise, I've had a chest infection for 10 days so I'm a bit cranky. Hopefully the doctor will relent and pump me full of antibiotics. I just hope I'm in the middle 8 otherwise it's back to the home made remedies. It is "The Bridge" and is great for food.

I've said many times I like the 3x8 and I have explained why. At the root of the improvements in opportunities you can look at the 1 divisional structure of RL. Under that system a team in 14th was likely to win about half their games, currently it's a fraction of that. Similarly the club in 15th would have a similar record rather than a whole load of wins against much poorer teams. The 3x8 will bring clubs closer together, the games will be more competitive, the teams at the top of the structure are the flagship, they currently are, they will continue to be and there will be fluidity because teams like Bradford and Salford will want to compete in that group. The middle group are the Yo-yo group who historically struggled under P&R to get a foothold. Now they have time. The bottom 8 test the water, less resources but more opportunities to attract investment than currently. The bottom league is the development league. Learn how to be an RL club based on sound models. I don't see any distinction in clubs. A club has resources to fund it's team and backroom, if it's 75% full time in the middle 8, then that club will pull off the odd shock and will be in the shop window. There is more money out there and there are fabulous opportunities. I've said elsewhere that currently professional football clubs have academies, not just for player but for administrators, referee's and coaches. This attracts money, big money. I did my level 1 FA coaching badge with nearly a dozen Middlesbrough academy kids. The money comes from the government via schools. You can deliver the program and make 40% net profit.I know this because I do it. RL clubs, sitting at the heart of the community in an inclusive progressive sport is a big, big sell. Schools would love it, government would love it, sponsors would be falling over themselves. RL would be developing it's needs from the grass roots. Best practice, and overwhelming inclusivity for the majority of the community. There are other opportunities. Such as charity status or CIC status for clubs. This attracts far more grants than for limited companies. Or the alternative is to look through the same eyes, at the same problems and see no other way. I hope this answers your question and the question of others.

Who said money isn't important?! What you've proven again and again is that whatever the route your own club took to get to Super League, is not one you are prepared to accept for others. You want the Ken Davey millions on the table upfront for other pretenders. Huddersfield didn't get a big cheque so where do you get your ideas from? Huddersfield's opportunities came from a local authority built stadium. That was the root, the chance for the Huddersfield tree to grow. Then came the drip feeding of money, based on results, optimism and opportunities. Now 15 or so years later,shazam, history is erased. The bumping, chancing, overspending, rule bending and blind luck is ignored because Huddersfield always knew they had £3m a year to mess it up....are you on something? The Alfred McAlpine was what the RFL wanted and Kirklees delivered. I admire that but I don't admire the history makers who re-write history.

Whats up? Shouting no longer an effective mechanism? It's nice to ask questions of other posters but continue your own rhetoric based on this wonderful belief that the castle walls will always protect the worthy (wealthy). If you live up to this statement I'll be amazed

I think this is an excellent point. RL has found it's niche within a niche. What I want to know is why this is a problem?

A point well made. How many Bradfordians have suddenly got short arms and long pockets because there's no trust? It's one of those wonderful northern phenomena.