Dave T

This is what I touch on with regards to further problems, but in reality, our pathways as they are are very unlikely to deliver scores of.world class athletes. Wire signed Russell this year who is probably an example of the kind of player we are talking about here. He has been deemed not good enough for Wire and the British lads have overtaken him. I dont like the decision, but there is an argument that suggests this will make the on field game better right now. Whether that is worth it for the longer term impacts is the big issue, id argue no.

I think this is right. It doesn't necessarily follow that these players will be worse than the alternatives. In fact there is argument that this will increase quality of players for less money that can be used on marquees etc. Of.course there are all.psrts of other reasons as to why this is a bad idea, but not necessarily a standards thing.

I think this is right. Where my worry comes in (and it may be unfounded) is that the first two Tests had unique elements that led to them selling out. Headingley is too small a ground and naturally sold out, and Everton had that new stadium element plus scarcity created by the Leeds venue. This became a bit of a phenomenon in the RL world and was unprecedented. Wembley doesn't have any of the above elements - huge venue, not always viewed favourably by fans - and while I think the initial batch of sales was the benefit from the above - this does now mean that the rest of the sales will come from traditional sales and marketing by the RFL, rather than a viral thing. That doesn't fill me with confidence too much tbh. Hopefully the 30k is so far ahead of where we would normally be that if we do sell a standard 30k or so using traditional methods, then it equates to a good crowd.

Yeah, I share some of these concerns, but this could just be a reflection on how positive the initial sales were for the Ashes. I suppose it shouldn't be out of the question to sell 30k from now, and if we are genuinely over that 30k mark then mid-60k would be a record breaking crowd for this.

Still looks pretty sluggish tbh (with the caveat that we are still 3m away). There are huge blocks in the lower tier with barely a ticket sold. And some of those marked as sold out in the lower tier are sitting with companies like SportsBreaks etc. It's noticeable that they used the 30k figure (which I expect to be PR guff) and have never released another number above that, despite apparently hitting that mark over 2 months ago and sales being so strong that they had to release more tickets (at cheaper prices).

I do fear we are looking at this the wrong way if we believe the solution is to focus on getting in schools in Runcorn and the likes. Of course we should be doing more and more where we currently are and broadening our activity there, but I worry that we are just playing round the edges with this. The amount of players we get from many smallish towns across the North of England is pretty staggering as it is, but we can't just keep bleeding this dry. I think the reality of the situation is that to fix and widen our talent pool in the UK, we are going to need to invest in growth/expansion and it's gonna be hard and expensive. And RL as a sport just doesn't do very well when things are hard and expensive.

Where is this from?

Yes, I do think it is hard not to be cynical of these reports. I'm a firm believer in "if something sounds too good to be true...". It just feels odd that we have interest from all over the world in investing in RL. We struggled to get investment when we touted for PE, certainly at any kind of decent level, I'm not sure why we would suddenly have a load of interest. It's all the same tactic as claiming that Netflix/Prime/DAZN/BT Sports etc have been interested in our tv rights before we then re-sign with Sky Sports for half the price.

This situation is not comparable to any of the other situations that anyone cares to mention. When we are in Rd 10 and a team has a cup final the week later, rotating your squad is a perfectly valid approach and is very easy to defend. Probably the worst example last year was also by Salford who gave Wigan the game to take the LLS, giving a taster of Rowley's mentality, but despite being damaging for the game in what should have been a blockbuster finish to the season, it stays just on the right side of the rules. When a club actively brings the game into disrepute and sticks their fingers up to the sport in this country in a high profile game because the coach wants to act like a stroppy teenager, then it doesn't work. Defences like injuries and squad rotation are not relevant here. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up with a 2/4 pt deduction and a suspended fine which feels proportionate, we should remember that the process hasn't finished yet, its being reported halfway through as far as I understand. What Salford did is not the same as others though. They made a political move and brought the game into disrepute at a time when the RFL were doing everything they could to help them.

Yep, agreed. I'd also be happy if they took this further and it was all part of a strategic announcement which explained that we are i creasing in the short term but we will be investing £x in player pathways across the UK that will support the long term reduction. An unsavoury short term fix is always more palatable with a proper plan behind it.

Good luck getting answers to any of that.

I made a similar point earlier in the thread, but to expect to be able to provide enough world class athletes to fill 10-14 teams within the narrow confines of the North of England is flawed, and that's why we end up where we are. I dont just go with the opinion that clubs can just make more effort and we can have full teams of English lads. Accepting that we can always do more. In the past we had player pathways from Union, bringing players in from all over the UK. We've never replaced that, we've just kept talking about the Northern heartlands. Robust pathways in London, Wales etc are a must for the future of the game - expansionist agendas are not just for a laugh.

One of the challenges around time wasting is that you struggle to get much sympathy when as a tackler youve spent all the rest of the match making the play the ball as slow as possible.

Isn't it something vague like 'without delay' or something?

I do think people just need to chill. We dont need to kneejerk just because some people don't like a ptb taking 10 seconds instead of 3.

Indeed. Its almost like its the perfect t argument as to why the clubs shouldn't be the ones deciding stuff like this.

Great stuff. But jeez, that's an ugly graphic in that post.

Well, the last person who had proper control was Wood. There was an owners coup when he ousted them.

Yup, its been a problem forever, but the evidence against it is coming thick and fast right now. I dont even necessarily think its just an 'I'm alright Jack' problem, running things so complex by committee is impossible.

Club owners come and go.

Double post

Hmm. You can't pull people for fiction and then deny what actually happened in 1995/6. London were parachuted into the new top flight for 1996. They did not earn on-field promotion, them and PSG benefited from being handpicked, everyone else was based on league rankings. Now, I dont agree with the poster you are replying to, and am more in your camp that London needs far more support than they have. But we dont need to claim they werent parachuted into SL (or given overseas players dispensation). I would argue that is the case for many areas, I notice you ask for London to receive the same patience and support that has been extended elsewhere - im not sure i see much patience and support for any clubs, we have a long history of throwing clubs under the bus. Catalans benefited from being handpicked, and protection for the first year or two, but outside of that nothing really. Let's be honest, if they were as bad as what London put on the field, theyd be left to the lower division. Catalans first few years was fine, but after that they've been left to themselves, and let's be honest, the terms of their participation are worse than other clubs. So we shouldn't really be looking for London to have similar support to others, we should be looking for expansion/special strategic clubs like this to have a hel of a lot more support than they have ever had.

Yeah, its ok, but it looks a little Samoa-y

If I was IMG I'd be getting out of here tbh.

Yes. History does rather suggest that we need a strong leadership team who will make decisions without being micromanaged by a committee of clubs.