Dave T

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting, and I think if clubs are transparent on this, it should be possible to get agreements. One of the challenges is that blanket agreements are a bit too clunky, and if you have cutoffs then it can seem unfair that some players take the bulk of the cuts, although the argument is that they earn most in the first place. I think as long as guarantees are made that any money saved this year wouldn't be spent on wages, and that no cuts are required next year, then I think it should be possible to agree some form of cut. On your last line, I agree that may be galling, but in reality, signings for next year will often be replacement and there are no details to suggest clubs have been making signings that will increase their wage bill in 2021. But ultimately, this is people's livelihoods we are talking about and it is a challenging one. I don't have an issue with players digging in heels, and I don't have an issue with clubs asking for cuts for this year only. There will need to be some pragmatism though, and ultimately games will be played behind closed doors.

Sorry, in simple terms, I am talking about the player wage bill. If they have a blanket wage cut of 20%, the club should be paying 20% less in wages.

The 20% wouldn't go anywhere, as the principle is that the clubs can't afford to pay that money, hence asking players to take less. If you currently pay £2.5m, claim you can't afford that and then carry on paying it after your employees take a pay cut, that doesn't work. Edit. Not sure if you mis-read my original post, I said I understand why players are not happy.

I think this is a tricky situation. However if players agree to, say, a 20% pay cut across the board, then the club should have their cap reduced by 20%. You can't make pay cuts and then still pay the full cap. If Warrington's current bill is £2.5m and they go down to £2m then the ask of a 20% pay cut is more reasonable. However I can understand why players wouldn't be happy with the situation.

We need to fully understand the reasons why there is pushback on Catalans playing games in Perpignan, if indeed there is any pushback. But I suspect the reasons are less around 5k noisy fans and more about costs of travel and increased risks associated with flying, using hotels etc.

Thanks, but there is nothibg from Leeds in there. Just a journo wrote some stuff. I agree if this is correct it is pathetic, but we have no evidence, I'd say crowd noise is way down the list of things to worry about here.

Link on Leeds stating they don't want to go because of crowd chants please?

Repeat post

Do you have a link please?

If clubs are able to stage games and cover the logistics, they should stage games. As close to normal as possible should be the aim. That said, I don't buy the reasoning, it is clearly an opinion. Maybe clubs are nervous about the additional travel on planes and playing in front of 5k fans because of the virus risk rather than a few chants against them.

Thanks John, I did see the update post you did on this forum after I posted this, appreciate the response! Here's to a speedy comeback and a long and successful future.

I went into Tesco today. I've been wearing a face mask every time I've been in for around 6 weeks or so now. I'd say around 10% normally wear one too. Today, now it is the rules to wear one in shops, pretty much everybody wore one. Staff, shoppers, everyone. No big deal, everyone cracked on and did what was asked of them.

I've been searching the last couple of days, and ended up just getting a bundle of those lycra-type material ones, I've been using them so far and they have done for quick half an hour trips to the shops. I've spent about £18 on Groupon to cover our family of 3 with a few masks. Since I have searched online though, quite a few cool ones have come up on Facebook, from clothing suppliers usually, and some of them look pretty nice - I'm just not that bothered to pay the more expensive price. So my advice, do a search on google, then go onto facebook and see the sponsored ads!

Thanks. I must admit, I haven't seen anything from your social media for a long time, I assumed I wasn't following you, but just checked and I am and there are regular updates. Who knew! A quick look down the LE Twitter timeline shows that most tweets get very little interactions, but there are a few notable exceptions. The tweet about the BBC showing all 61 World Cup games gets a huge (relatively speaking) number of likes and retweets far more than player signings, same with TWP/SLE international trade deal, and Moz doing a sponsored walk. These things don't appear to be clickbait and seem to have far more interactions than the kind of articles you refer to. Now obviously these are different metrics to site visits that you refer to, but that then leads me back to this maybe isn't just a direct like-for-like comparison, or maybe it is and people just aren't turned on by pay discussions, maybe they want to read some positive news while life is hard.

Sorry if it came across as a criticism John, it wasn't meant as that, I understand why companies charge for content and have no issues with that. If I'm honest though, I don't really understand the content you offer, I didn't realise there was premium content now, I thought it was the same stuff but behind a paywall. And I still don't know whether it is the same as the print stuff, and if it is do subscribers get the online access too? And as an aside while we are on the subject, has RLW been put into hibernation for now? I've just realised I haven't had one through the letterbox for a while! The question about the analysis remains though, it doesn't make sense that a bit of player chat is 2.5 times more popular than an article on something as contentious as the club finances and player contracts.

Can I just check though Matt, what analysis was carried out on time published, where it was visible, traffic at the time it was live, how many couldn't get onto the article etc? Because that fails the sniff test as far as our business would be concerned. A piece on pay discussions within SL would without doubt have demand here, but I for one haven't seen any trace of it, and there is no reason to think a Gold Coast player article would be in demand. I think making the assumption it is all about interest in the subject may need further review.

Does anybody actually read stuff on this website? Often I don't bother clicking links as I will be told I don't have access.

At the risk of repeating myself (although why not isn't that we all do here ) - I don't see an issue with cheap tickets and offers, I think we miss the market for the 'Premium' end of the market though. If we are truly a game for all, that doesn't mean just aiming at the less affluent end of the market, we should be aiming at wider segments of the market. If we want to sell tickets for a tenner, then we have cheap seats for them. But we should also be selling Premium seats at a higher price, and more experiences at the top end. Things like horse-racing have decent ranges for pricing. They have the cheap family seats, and they have the premium "treat yourself" experiences too, and they are always popular. I think some clubs do some of this ok, but not brilliantly.

Again I differ slightly from you here. I think it absolutely is a must. The area I disagree with others is how patient we will need to be. At the moment player development is encouraged through a series of incentives, hopefully as part of future TV deals TWP will form part of that incentive structure. RL must develop players, the top clubs must develop players, that includes TWP. From a standing start, waiting 10, 15, 20 years is reasonable in my eyes, but there does need to be a roadmap.

I agree with some of this, but with one major exception. I am cool making concessions for TWP in the short term, based on things like weighting, or not being able to access local player dispensations, however they should only be allowed as long as there are attempts to actually develop local players. The argument that it will take a decade or longer to develop local players and therefore access these cap dispensations is valid, and I agree with the dispensations - but if the club doesn't have a pathway (or a roadmap to create that pathway) then the dispensation should not be forthcoming. That cap dispensation is one of the incentives to get clubs to develop their own players - if there is no attempt, then there should be no dispensation. One of the real benefits of moving into a new area should be new player pools, that should be encouraged and incentivised as much as anywhere else.

Remember watching this on Live TV at the time. Absolutely brutal game with an unbelievable atmosphere even on TV.

Nice day out at some pubs yesterday, met a friend and spent the day in the sun. Only outdoors open yesterday, 3 quite different experiences. Pub 1 - military operation, bookings only, 2hr slot, toilet attendant directing you where to go, table service with an app only. Really nice relaxed experience. Pub 2 - little cafe bar, no signs of anything different, tables slightly further apart, had a drink, had a pee washed our hands and left. The hope is that the staff were being extra vigilant. Pub 3 - Brewdog, had 5 tables outside, they were serving takeaway beer so you could then sit in the square on the walls and they would let you into the toilet. This worked brilliantly, staff had masks, everything marked out, signs all over the toilets etc but left you to your own devices. Had a really good day, be interesting to see what it's like at the weekend, and tbh I'm not in a rush to sit inside, but was all very pleasant and well organised. Aerial photo of pub 1, The Pear Tree, Edinburgh.

Already tried to edit out of respect for the mods. I have no time for fantasists. I'll leave you to it.

Not worth it, out of respect for the mods.

They put a lot of words in releases that say little.