Dave T

I think we always knew that this was going to be an issue at the back end of the season, and it was one of the down-sides of franchising for me, but then there were always going to be pros and cons. When we moved to Summer we pretty much killed off proper tours, I miss them, but I wouldn't move back to winter just for them. You need to weigh up all the pros and cons rather than look misty-eyed at individual features.

Wigan do seem to have some very good ideas, not sure how succesful each one is, but personally I would receommend your club sets up a meeting with the other local clubs in the area who have grown their crowds this year (Wigan, Wire and Saints have all done so). I like the fact that on Wigan's website they give details of most of their promotion, whereas much of the work that Warrington do seems to be kept quiet in this area. Sometimes the crowd is just higher for no apparent reason! Wigan have a lot of group packages which I think are a great idea, they have all sorts of discounted packages for certain numbers. They have packages where the kids can go pitchside during the warmup, or can hold the hands of the players as they enter the field. Some very impressive packages. They have also done something whereby the person who purchases the most tickets for a certain game gets a free season ticket for next year. Something like that may encourage people to drag their families along, and perhaps you could reward anybody who buys over 10 tickets at once.

Yep, personally I don't see any reason why they would be any harsher on Cas than any other team. It's worth pointing out that

Of course pre-emptive action can be taken. Announcements can be made warning fans of the consequences of foul and abusive language, homophobic or racist chanting.

Warrington used to get a little stick for making various announcements before and during the game about the HJ being a community stadium etc. This was usually followed by the away following singing 'W*nky W*nky'. Whilst this didn't necessarily stop all foul chanting, it did absolutely send out the message that the club does not accept it. Compare this to Saints, who had a fair few comments about Sky turning the volume down on their fans foul chants, and you heard nothing from their club. That said, foul language is different to homophobic or racist chanting, and whilst foul language can be offensive, I don't believe 'W*nkers' are an often oppressed or victimised group of people.

Maybe, but when you look at the list of 3's he would still have to be near the top.

Personally I just hope that by season they were referring to the 8 week period and that he may be back for the playoffs.

Yep, especially when the 'standard' is Clubb, Smith and a second-rower. The Ireland thing is the one thing I have agreed with Mr Posh about in this thread, although it is up to the governing bodies to put a stop to this farcical situation now.

Apologies, missed Gleeson, thought it was strange he was left off the list.

Fair enough it's your opinion, but I just find it strange that you couldn't find any actual number threes knocking around in the game that are better than him and doing it week in week out. The one that is up there is Gleeson and you don't even mention him. We saw how good Lee Smith was at 3 in that 40m destruction at the DW.

Is this serious? So when asked for a list of players who you would put at 3 ahead of Bridge, you go with: Pryce J Tomkins Clubb Smith Watkins Briscoe Most of those players don't even play right centre, yet you would have them in ahead of a player who has made that position his own and has had a couple of decent games for England in that position already.

Yep, wouldn't think twice about puting Gleeson back in there. Like with Pryce, we shouldn't just be resigning players to the scrap heap just because they have lost their spot once. We simply don't have enough quality players to be able to do that.

He is England's current Number 3, and anything that weakens our options in the backs is a blow IMO.

I'm with you mate. Personally I think he should be dropped and work on some of his development areas in the 20's. Penny got dropped for a lot less than Riley is doing on a week-by-week basis. Personally I was hoping that with Myler back, King would have taken Riley's spot, but now with Bridge out that looks unlikely.

I assume that was a typo? It will be Hicks, King, Atkins and Riley as the first choice three-quarters now, which we have had for many games anyway. Bad news for Bridge and Wire, he has been excellent at 3 for us.

Whilst there is a lot of interchange (mainly IMHO due to the pace of the game and the size of pitches simply not making it practical for halves to have to keep swapping sides when you are moving the ball from one side of the pitch to another), I do believe the 7 is first receiver for quite a few clubs. Certainly at Warrington Myler will control the short passing game close to the ruck, and Briers will generally come in at 2nd receiver on the wide plays. At Wigan, you often see Tomkins (or O'Loughlin) as the 2nd receiver out wide. During the England game when Tomkins was playing 7, it was much more obvious that he was taking the ball first up and he was more involved in controlling the play than he sometimes is at Wigan.

What the hell is this thread on about?

As with most of these position-specific questions, much of it can depend on the personnel available and the coach in charge. I know I often bring Briers up on these threads, but he is probably one of the few remaining quality 'traditional' stand-offs playing in SL. In basic terms, often they will be 2nd receiver on attacking plays and will link with the wider players (usually centres, fullbacks and 2nd rowers). They will often have plenty of assists as they will be responsible for putting players through the gaps (watch Briers' pass to Atkins on Sunday for a perfect example of why I like watching Briers). Defensively I disagree with Matt slightly in that often we see halves (6 or 7) defending in either the wing or centre position, often due to their lack of size and to protect them for their offensive play. As you mentioned in your opening post though Cofi, often teams will use their 13 or 1 as a playmaker and he will do things which often get thought of as a 6's job. Mathers has been linking into the Wire line a lot recently and using the cut-out pass to the winger. For me, this is a bonus play and simply increases your options. Wigan on the other hand use O'Loughlin as their ball handling 2nd receiver (his number of assists this year is very impressive), and the reason I think he is 13 rather than 6 is due to the lack of pace. When it comes to the running plays etc. then Tomkins will step in. I know this is a rambling post, but I think it highlights the difficulties in stereotyping the modern RL player, and is a reason why it can be difficult to compare like for like. Pryce, Briers and Tomkins for example are three quite different stand offs.

I have no issues with using RLFC. I do not want any confusion about the fact that my team are a Rugby League club. The fact is that Union has convinced people that 'Rugby' is Union, and by referring to our clubs simply as Rugby, it can make their game seem bigger in certain areas. We are Rugby League and think it is right to use the title (just as I think Union should be using Rugby Union as it's title).

Disappointing that that was your experience mate, what in particular are you referring to? As has been mentioned, your team are certainly getting plenty of praise on the Wire board, and I know generally Wire fans are very supportive of the traditional teams like Fev - I also look at us as similar clubs with rich histories. I know it's no good for you, but hopefully your experience was isolated, as a fair few Fev fans have said they had good banter with our fans.

Not sure if they have to, but that certainly used to be the prize on offer. Not done the Golden Gamble for years, but I agree a

I suppose it's best to agree to disagree then tbh mate, but I'm not sure there is an issue when a stadium is not full to capacity. Like I have said, I'm not defending them blindly, IMHO it is the stewards that are the issue, and this has been the case on a fair few occasions - however they are the club's responsibility, irrespective of whether they are directly employed by them or not. I was in the South Stand for the first ever game there when there was trouble fitting everyone in, yet I was stood in the far end and there was rucks of space. The stewards are terrible at being pro-active at directing fans and controlling the crowds. Considering they have cctv, it really should be easy enough to direct groups of fans to certain areas of the stand. This stand has 4k in every week without any issues, so the stand certainly wasn't over capacity, that is why I am defending the decision (but, again, not the execution).

Not really sure what you are getting at. The X is always bigger than the Y. The stand will have only been sold to capacity, which has been reached for all of our home games so far (in the South Stand).

Again, not trying to blindly defend the club, but just trying to add some balance. We have had a bigger crowd than this with only three stands open before. There will have been reasons for not opening that stand, and I assume that they were due to costs. The fact that there were 2k empty spaces suggest that they were right, although like I said it sounds like the execution of it was poor. With all due respect to the young fan you are referring to, there was always a chance that the standing area would be full, so to ensure a good view then you would have needed to get in the ground early or pay an extra couple of quid to sit down (which is what I do now). Stewards can't allow people to stand on the walkway at the front just because they can't see. Apologies if that sounds harsh. Hope this didn;t ruin your enjoyment of your trip to Wire, but I'm just trying to add some balance to this.