Dave T

It is, but do you look to cater for 500 fans of one club, or 6-7k of another club? It's okay anyway, I clicked the train button on Google and that ups the time to just shy of 7hrs!

Never had major issues with Google tbh - 212 miles in 3hrs 15 on motorways didn't set any alarm bells ringing.

Whilst I don't think the Leigh choice is right, making things up weaken your argument. 1 - The venue will be big enough for this game. Look at Wigan's last semi finals - Against Saints (2011) there were empty seats at the HJ with a crowd of 12.7k. Against Leeds (2012) there were 12.8k - two of the biggest teams in the game. Against Wire (2010) - there were empty seats and Wire sold some of Wigan's allocation. 2 - It's not 5hrs from London. Looking at Google shows that from the Stoop to LSV it is 3hrs 15. It is pretty quick if you use public transport too. Like I say, I don;t like the choice, but don;t weaken your own argument.

We have had these games on BBC1 previously. Putting games on BBC will adversely affect viewing figures. If we have made the decision that we want to keep this tournament on terrestrial TV, we should be looking for maximum exposure. 6pm on a Sunday evening on BBC 2 is not prime time.

There is no conspiracy to get Wigan through, unfortunately I do think that this is a little bit of the fans own making. We haven't turned up in decent numbers for years, we can blame the RFL all we want, but there have been very very few sellouts inthe semis, and those that have tend to be at the last minute. Wigan's 14k average is irrelevant, the last time they played against Wire at Widnes they didn't even sell out their allocation of around 6k so lets not make out they will now get 14k turning up for a semi. Of course they have also turned out in numbers for games too, I think they got over 10k at Huddersfield against London years back, but quite simply RL fans don't just have this free income to go to any games. It is only finals that drag the whole town out. I'd love them to be ambitious and be staging a double header at Coventry, but the reality is you'd probably get 5k each from Wire, Wigan and Hull and 700 from London meaning that a double header would have a lower crowd than two separate events.

Inspiring. I assume these are tucked away on BBC 2 again.

Whilst I agree with you, I don't think it's the RFL's choice where that money goes. They get one share, as do the Championship clubs. That means that £2.4m is already held back. On top of the additional £2.4m that will be 'freed' up, it will be interesting to see what they share out to the 12 in the 2nd tier. If the League Express article is correct then it does indeed seem bizarre to give different funding to teams in the same division, although not unheard of in sport.

Because it is all forecasted let's be honest, you can make a business case for all of the scenarios. From a financial point of view, I suspect there is little between most of the options, it is the leap of faith (the crowds will double) or the cynicism (the crowds will half) that people need to make a call one.

I'm not so sure. P&R was in there for quite a while, and if we are honest the scrapping of it was hardly something that was clamoured for. Licensing and scrapping of annual P&R was brought in due to a business idea, which many fans aren't that bothered about ultimately, rightly or wrongly, so whilst the debate will probably rumble on for ever, there have been out and out campaigns for the return of annual P&R where as I don;t think anybody feels that strongly that licensing is 100% the right solution and would campaign for it. Let's be honest, even on here there are all sorts of different ideas from a relatively small group of RL fans: 10 div SL 2 x 10 divs, then 6/6/8 12 team SL with P&R 12 team SL with Licensing 2 x 12 team SL with 8/8/8 14 team SL with licensing 14 team SL with P&R Toulouse in Toulouse out Additional funds for expansion teams. This suggests to me that there is no clear right and wrong answer.

they should know their place and appreciate it.

fair enough.Previously I would have agreed that this was a small vocal minority, but as time has passed this view seems to have become more and more the norm. I found myself having to explain and justify licensing and lack of p&r regularly to plenty of Wire fans, Saints fans, Leeds fans. I know no fans of lower league clubs in real life so it has all been SL fans. This has challenged my way of thinking about this.

Do you know that this is a minority that want these changes? If so how, as in evidence - not attendance charts, as some people will watch no matter what.

It depends on the real reasons why people have ultimately voted to scrap the current system. It doesn't appear that there is a strong feeling that Licensing has failed, unless they had clear measures that they were going to judge in 4.5 years which would appear slightly too short a period of time. If the judgement has been made that there is a groundswell of opinion from fans, clubs and journalists that lack of P&R is ruining the game, they would probably be right. They also may have decided that the lack of variety and excitement around P&R is a bad thing, and tbh I am inclined to agree. Maybe this isn't just some overnight reactionary decision, but the realisation that we have lost something as a sport that is an emotional and subjective thing rather than based on a spreadsheet or graphs. If the people in charge genuinely believe that we have moved in a direction which is not the best, then I am glad that they are strong enough to review that and if that means it looks like we are regressing, then so be it. I don't think we should be too worried about Catalan. I'm a Wire fan, my club looks pretty safe under any structure, but I must admit that I am sick of the negativity that Licensing brought, and also I do feel we miss something with new clubs not being admitted. I also think some pretty poor clubs have been allowed in by the move to 14. We had standards and just dropped them to get the best 14 in. I don't think it is fair to dismiss anybody who supports the recent changes as backward looking or similar.

Is the intention to give money to lower clubs so they can pay full time squads? My understanding is that 2nd tier clubs would still be on a much lower salary cap. The funding would help to strengthen the clubs off the field if this was the case.

Padge, for the last 40 years we have had more than one division. At what point does our culture become multi-division? A very large number of Rugby League fans will have no recollection whatsoever of one division, and even those who do will have to scratch around in their memory bank.

Can you lot not keep it down, the Rugby's on!

I don't think we should give club's reduced funding in SL - the Bulls one is a different case as their is an argument that it is punishment, but to reward a team with reduced funding feels wrong. Agree with your thoughts on minimum standards/licensing etc. It should absolutely be clear that a team won't just get into SL by finishing top.

We probably shouldn't jump on a comment that we have heard third hand - apologies if club's have told you this directly!

I agree with your first part - I think moving to 14 without it being part of a strong, long term expansion strategy was foolish, and that is the reason we have to face this now. I think I may have stated on this thread earlier that the devil is in the detail. With a normal 1 up 1 down format, the rules need to be right to reduce the negative impacts on clubs in relegation battles, and real thought needs to go around the club that does get relegated. My biggest issue with a club being relegated is tbh the off-field staff rather than any players. Commercial managers, marketing teams etc need to be implementing 3-5 year strategies, and if they face redundancies as soon as a club is relegated it becomes an issue. I'd rather see a parachute payment that can only be used on the condition these backroom structures are maintained.

Yep - i'm a bit like you in that I like facts/stats etc. but there are a lot of things that are subjective too which will form opinions.

I think anybody who has never changed an opinion/view is either stupid or arrogant. We learn new things every day. My opinions are different now from 10 years ago on a whole range of things. I very rarely see people change their opinions on here, that isn't normal, but it is understandable as people often allow emotions to form their opinions and then they stubbornly stick to it irrespective of any evidence as you say. This isn't a personal attack on anyone here, I like pretty much all the posters, I'm just stunned at times that people will never give an inch.

This is the big issue mate. Ultimately we can all have opinions, but the bigger issue is when customer's behaviour changes. If a decision is made that makes people moan, but they still go, then you could argue it is fine. If crowds start to dip then it becomes an issue. I do worry that people are stopping spending their hard earned cash on attending some games due to the lack of competition. I often hear the top 8 has made it too easy to get into the playoffs, and teams at the bottom have little to play for - these aren't necessarily views I agree with, and if I lived closer to a team I'd be attending every week, but these are views I hear from people who don't attend any more. Even if they are technically wrong, if it is stopping them supporting the game (and they aren;t being replaced) then it is an issue. Measuring the success of Licensing is almost impossible, people state the likes of Koukash coming in is a reason, yet we have seen plenty of rich backers involved before (not enough!). People talk about youth development, but then tough quotas can sort this, my club Warrington made the decision to invest heavily in this year at the turn of the last decade well before licensing. I haven't seen any evidence that it worked that can't be put down to anything else. I have seen it cause a major split in the game though, that is my personal issue.

I too disagree. Why does everybody think they are right, that would suggest we are the biggest bunch of arrogant fans around? These things are so subjective, with very little proof or evidence - it is often stubbornness and arrogance that leads people to make no concessions whatsoever on any point. My opinion on the future of the game has been heavily influenced by people here, my family and friends, people at the match etc. I have no issues admitting that my opinions have changed a fair bit. I must be the most stupid person here as everybody else seems to get it right first time and sticks to it!

I have read a poster write that. Now that was a credible poster to be fair, but I'd like to read a verbatim quote or even hear that myself. Were any key words missing from the quote, like 'some' etc. Also, if it was a forum, people don't always make accurate statements.

Ultimately this is one of the issues. Due to some of the political decisions of recent years, plenty of fans (and journalists) have felt excluded from the game, and quite frankly become a real thorn in the side for the sport. Somebody else mentioned they now feel part of the RL family again, and if I'm honest this is why my stance has changed. I'd rather see us all pulling together rather than the fragmented game that we have seen. I suspect 'Sooper Dooper League etc' will be retired. The bit that worries me now is the way a group of pro-licensing fans seem to have taken it on themselves to replicate the behaviours of the pro-P&R fans so we could end up in the same position. I supported licensing, I actually think it is other decisions that have been wrong, but I'm not sure anybody can sit there and say licensing has been a resounding success. Argue that it has shown some positives, or that it is too early to judge, but imho it caused more negatives than positives. The attitude of a vocal few on here that lower clubs and their fans should know their place is not one I share and that worries me for the sake of unity within the game.