Chris22

I agree that we should be aiming for growth. There is the issue that we are asking the same fans to fork out time after time. Season tickets, away trips, Magic Weekend, cup finals, play offs, internationals. I understand why most are aimed at the same folk and slightly frustrating that the one aspect that is appealing to a wider audience, internationals, remain in the usual venues (including two venues very close to each other). Saying that, I do appreciate that it's very easy for us to say we should play matches in London, Coventry, Newcastle etc. and actually arranging that mid-football season and, of course, paying for it isn't as straight forward. I suspect we are paying the price for a World Cup which made a number of strategic errors and lost money. That has probably forced us to be more risk averse. The test series is a historic one but I still think it is an uphill task to sell Tonga, a country with a population a little larger than the capacity of Wembley, especially to a wider audience. It is a country that most who aren't into rugby will know nothing about, and many may not have even heard of. For example, I think a match between England v France outside of the heartlands may have a greater appeal on the face of it than a match against Tonga, due to the recognition factor.

Here are attendances for England matches, not against Australia or New Zealand, nor in a World Cup on home soil, since we ditched the GB brands: April 2023 v France = 8,422 June 2022 v All Stars = 9,393 June 2021 v All Stars = 4,000 (capacity limited due to covid) October 2018 v France = 5,144 October 2016 v Scotland = 21,009 October 2013 v Italy = 4,382 June 2013 v Exiles = 7,926 November 2012 v France = 7,921 October 2012 v France = 7,173 July 2012 v Exiles = 7,865 June 2012 v Exiles = 11,083 November 2011 v Wales = 10,377 June 2011 v Exiles = 14,174 October 2010 v France = 7,951 October 2009 v France = 11,529 October 2008 v Wales = 11,263 Given the historic attendances that these fixtures get, I'm not sure why there is such a shock at why we are not selling out these stadiums. It is entirely in line with what we would expect over the course of the last 15 years. What arguably is noticable is that the largest crowd came in Coventry (v Scotland in 2016) and Doncaster also posted good crowds (Oct 2008 and 2009), and neither are rugby league hotbeds. Perhaps there's a lesson in there that we can sell internationals to more novice crowds instead of relying on the same each time. If the map on the RL ticketing site is accurate (a big if), it'll look fine on TV tomorrow.

It's nothing more than my own view rather than based on anything concrete but I doubt IMG or anyone expected London to hold a Super League place at the time gradings were announced. I expect that IMG, given their public comments on the important of a London presence, probably saw a slower build up with London eventually reaching a stage of being a Super League side and a stable one at that. The fact that London are here from 2024 changes that dynamic significantly. I'm not sure of the mechanics of the new system. It may be rigid, as you suggest, and require a vote to allow more flexibility, or the terms may allow IMG to have ultimate discretion to make recommendations to the RFL as it sees fit. At this stage, it is little more than speculation on my part what IMG may do, but it is arguably the first major challenge of our new structure. It has been brought it to allow teams to build without the threat of automatic relegation. It would fly in the face of that aim to relegate London after one season in Super League (and they could be relegated theoretically even if they have a strong on field season and finish mid table). Yet at the same time, it would fly in the face of the grading system to allow a side with a lower grading than a side outside of Super League to retain its place.

It's never sat comfortably with me that on field achievement is a side note. London have earned it on the field, so fair play to them, they deserve a shot. But to be fair to IMG, they have never indicated a willingness to go away from their points system, that is just my suspicion about what will happen.

It will be interesting to see how it goes. Last time, not one side had a licence revoked. It's a common misconception that Crusaders did. They did not, they withdrew their application.

Yep, that's exactly how I think it would work, in the event that London didn't meet the criteria. I think IMG would say that London are of such strategic importance that they would be granted a license.

Now is probably a good time to remind ourselves of what IMG have said in public about London. Call me a cynic but you can have whatever handbook or criteria you like, but I see almost zero prospect of London. having earned on field promotion, being kicked out of Super League after one season by IMG. London identified by IMG as key in effort to transform rugby league | Rugby league | The Guardian

Looks like the RFL have done their usual trick of showing tickets as not available then releasing more. For example, block C in the North Stand at St Helens was showing as having no tickets available yesterday. Now it has 32% availability! And the East stand was showing at about 2% availability, now it is at 25%!

I'm going to the match at St Helens and looking forward to it. I watched a couple of Tonga matches at the World Cup last year and they are as big of a draw to me as New Zealand would be. It's always hard to tell what kind of crowd will be expected as you never know if the RFL just haven't put some tickets on sale or if they are actually sold. If all tickets that are showing as sold are sold, it'll look fine on TV. Hopefully, a decent first match will then build interest for the next two tests.

The stadium is in need of renovation now and is nowhere near as good as more modern stadiums and the length of the playing surface is dangerous. That being said, we should be cautious about changing for the risk of making things worse. If we pull out of Old Trafford, there will be no going back. Say, we decide to host the Grand Final at the Etihad (and Man City wanted that). The danger is in three years time, they end the agreement and where would we go from there? The sport has an excellent relationship with Old Trafford and, despite its limitations, I think we should stay.

I do agree. If you compared when Liverpool made the Champions League Final in 2019 and when St Helens made the Challenge Cup Final in 2021, there was a lot more Liverpool flags around town, on houses etc. by comparison. Maybe there is a bit of a generation split between those who will still refer to St Helens as being in Lancashire at one end and those who see St Helens as a suburb of Liverpool in the other. Whilst the town's identity is still strong, in my view, it is right to say that the next generation will only have known St Helens as being part of the "Liverpool City Region" and views may change. I have my doubts that the opposite will be true and that people from Liverpool will see St Helens as an extension of it.

If this was to happen (which it won't), I expect it would cause an outcry in the town of St Helens and the city of Liverpool wouldn't even notice. There is very little distance between the two places but in some ways they feel worlds apart. Prescot is less than 10 minutes away from Knowsley Road, for example. When there was a team there, they averaged crowds of around 300. Not only is there a very limited rugby league presence in Liverpool, there is absolute absence of knowledge or interest in gaining knowledge of the sport. I don't know if it's different in boroughs of London and whether there is a collective identity of being a Londoner, whether your in Hackney, Ealing, Tottenham or wherever. It's not like that in what they call the "Liverpool City Region". People from Liverpool and St Helens tend to have strong and very separate identities. I get the logic, from an outside perspective but there would be nothing gained from this and plenty of goodwill torched.

I thought the game had a lot of similarities with Catalans semi final last weekend. Against a well organised defence, Catalans never really looked like breaking Wigan down and lacked ideas (as they did against St Helens the week before). Where Catalans were excellent was their scramble defence. Some of the efforts to stop Wigan tries were unbelievable. I don't think anyone can deny Wigan deserved to win on the night and over the course of the season. If anything, on the balance of play perhaps it should have been a little more comfortable for Wigan. It wasn't the most exciting game in my view but the tension of a close run final helped compensate for that. Wigan's extra dynamism in attack was probably the difference. I also thought Harry Smith was outstanding. I've never particularly rated him but over the last few months he seems to be developing into a classy player.

Quite a bit to unpack. I note the word "broadcast" rather than "televised", not sure if I'm reading too much into this but maybe plenty of games on YouTube or the Sky Sports App? The obvious upside is a lot more exposure, accessibility and visibility for the sport. Also a positive that all matches have video referees. Whilst I can take or leave a video referee, if we are to have it, then it really should be at all games. And that in turn should mean we are able to sell and produce higher quality highlights. The obvious downside is Sky have purchased around 3x the content that they previously had for less money than when it was 2 matches per round. I'm sure they will argue some of that is made up in terms of video ref funding, better broadcast quality etc. Will be interesting to see how this impacts scheduling. Will Sky want all games in a standalone slot, like we have in the NRL? From the point of view of the league, that would be ideal! From a more selfish point of view, I do prefer having a regular day and time for home fixtures.

Looking forward to the game. A lot of talk about Wigan's attack but it's their defence that I think will see them home. They've conceded 12, 6, 6, 0, 8, 0, 12, 6 in their last matches. Whilst I expect a reasonably tight match, I'm not sure Catalans have enough points in them to win it, given that Wigan can score from noting. I'll go with 24-8 to Wigan.

Very bad day for the sport. At times, it looked like the roots of a solid club were forming. The third League 1 withdrawal in the last 2 years. The league is hanging on by its fingertips now.

I do admire the brass neck of a terrible player at a club that has had a terrible season to come out and criticise other people that allegedly haven't been doing their job to an acceptable standard. It's an almost impressive lack of self-awareness.

I must confess, it had slipped my mind quite how poor London were last year. Now you mention it, there was a real prospect of them dropping to League 1 for a period. Yes, fair point, that does change the dynamic. I suppose we will learn more when we do see the indicative gradings. Maybe it's the sceptic in me that sees the prospect of IMG deciding to relegate a London side that gets promoted after one season as being very low (possibly even expanding the league, should Wakefield score higher).

For finishing 12th this year Wakefield will get 2.7 points and London will get 2.3. But, if London get promoted, they would get a bonus, increasing the points for on field performance to 2.6 for the year. London will also secure 1.5 points due to 'catchment', as would Toulouse. That is quite a substantial weighting (it's 1/10th of the way to a Grade A rating) London will score well on stadium and facilities too. There are points for TV viewing figures too. If there is no Championship TV coverage next year, Wakefield will take a big hit. Wakefield have also made just 4 TV appearances this season. I think London, despite being in a lower league, have made 3. I'm not sure it's that clear cut.

The criteria are heavily skewed in favour of clubs that are presently in Super League, so whichever club does get promoted has a real shot of staying in the top flight for a very long time. With this being the last year of automatic promotion, the stakes are even higher than normal. The prize is just the same but the risk of going straight back down is almost zero (barring financial meltdown).

I must say I've never understood the argument that the Magic Weekend is the problem. Of our three major events, it is the only one not to see a decline in crowds over the last 5 years.

Here is the wording of the relevant law. Put simply Offside and within 10 metres and no defender waiting to catch / collect the ball = no penalty Offside and within 10 metres where a defender is waiting to catch / collect the ball = penalty

A tight match with limited chances for both sides and a low scoring, pretty ugly contest at time, which was to be expected really. Over the years, we have managed to keep our composure in difficult moments and Catalans have always struggled with that. The roles reversed tonight and that was ultimately the difference. We gave away three kickable penalties (two of which were taken) through avoidable acts of foul play and another penalty arising from an error. That indiscipline gave Catalans a chance to get back into the game, and their tactics to kick even when behind were very smart. Then, at the end, we made more errors than Catalans leading to the winner. Very little between the two sides but there has to be a winner and loser, Catalans just that bit cleaner than us tonight. Few complaints about the team though, they gave everything they had and great runs come to an end!

I believe Roby is aiming to go into a sports admin role and got a degree in the field in the last few years. I'm sure I've seen he's said he's open to opportunities outside of the game so tonight may very well have been it.

Must say, it did raise a smile seeing a post saying Saints players don't play the sport fairly, disproportionatly benefit from the rub of the green on the field and suggesting favouritism from the disciplinary panel, topped off with the comment that it's Saints fans who are bitter!