Tommygilf

Well quite. The truth is there are no clubs like Batley West of the Pennines anymore; at least in relation to their grounds.

A much more popular and wealthy sport with a proven track record of owning and/or redeveloping its own grounds? Perhaps that is why there has been more clubs be able to continue in the lower divisions in Yorkshire. West of the pennines seems to only invest in clubs at the top level (or with ambitions for it), whereas clubs like Swinton, Rochdale and Oldham (and the list of defunct clubs too) have been left to fend for themselves with varying results. And, as I made quite clear, they aren't better in Lancashire. There are 6 modern grounds in Lancashire vs 5 in Yorkshire (and that is being harsh on Hull KR, Hunslet and Sheffield). That's not a large enough difference to justify "better".

On quite a simple level, there are just more clubs in Yorkshire to make it look better/worse. 11 in West Yorkshire, 2 in South Yorks, 1 in York and 2 in East Riding compared with 6 in Greater Manchester, 2 in Cheshire, and 1 in Merseyside; 16 vs 9. Yorkshire isn't nearly twice as financially prosperous to compensate for that. Of the "Western" clubs, only St Helens and Warrington have modern purpose built RL grounds they own. The rest are either in relatively modern municipal owned community developments and/or are shared with other (football or RU) clubs. Even then 2 of those are effectively homeless playing well outside their home towns or in park fields. By contrast, in Yorkshire no fewer than 8 teams own their own grounds, with the RFL owning the Leasehold of 1 more. 7 clubs, Halifax, Huddersfield, York, Hull FC, Hunslet, Doncaster and Sheffield, are in (or at least will be in Sheffield's case), for want of a better word, "Western" style ground shares/community facilities. Comparatively then, the Yorkshire Clubs have gotten more municipally funded facilities than our cousins across the Pennines across all levels from League 1 to Super League. There's just more here to potentially get them (and therefore not get them). Quite literally, for every Cas, Keighley or Wakefield there is a Huddersfield, York or Doncaster. Leeds and Hull KR have led the way in redevelopment of their own existing facilities (as have Fev), in a way that no club on't other side of't hills have. I think the reality is that because there are nearly double the number clubs in Yorkshire, there are going to be a broader range of results. Some folk will naturally focus on the strugglers, as is their prerogative. But to do that in reverse would be to ignore Warrington, Saints and Wigan and instead focus on Oldham and Swinton. I suppose the major contrast is that no Lancashire club owns an old facility now - because very few actually do own their facility full stop. There is no equivalent to Castleford or Keighley. The Cumbrian clubs are far more like the Tykes in that respect. Which is better isn't an East-West divided question. Edit: there is definitely more analysis which can be done here. I have a few days off next week and might look into it more then

Galway Tribesmen representing the Emerald Isle next year it seems.

Any idea if Wakey will use temporary seating as Leeds did whilst construction goes on behind? A whole side of a ground is a lot to lose for a season.

That time it was in English!

Come again?

As it says the DR with Leeds and Fev is now agreed - I suspect that will aid Fev in their aims. Leeds have said since reserves became a thing again that our u19s (formerly the highest tier of the academy level before that was reduced to u18s) would be our reserves. I suspect some clubs will take alternate approaches including local amateurs.

It seems Leeds won't be happy unless every 1st team squad player is playing a match each weekend. Wonder if lower squad players will be offered to Fev or Bradford based on what? Their location? https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/leeds-rhinos-loan-dual-registration-22313837?utm_source=leeds_live_newsletter&utm_campaign=rugby_league_lve_newsletter&utm_medium=email&pure360.trackingid=

There's no chance they will have an all male line up imo

On the flip side it usually means the can charge more initially and keep the price up for longer. I can see this working for clubs who have fixed designs rather than colours (which are more flexible) and don't have huge fanbases.

You claim to want variety yet also claim the NRL is the ultimate form of the game Its really not controversial for Leeds, Wigan, Warrington and St Helens to be the most regularly broadcasted teams. Until someone comes along and usurps them in popularity and commercial value then that will continue. 6 games a round is what it is.

It looks non league football levels frankly, zero integration

Apparently Cas away is selling well

Don't worry Harry you won't have to buy Sky to watch your team any time soon... I think you understand perfectly well why the biggest teams get shown on TV the most, I think you just don't like that at the moment that is Leeds.

I for one am amazed that the objectively largest club by most metrics based in a city by itself is such a popular choice with Sky, it makes no sense.

Harry the above was bitter and untrue nonsense that didn't warrant further debate. I wanted to stop you before you embarrassed yourself further.

Please don't go near any Lemons today Harry

I quite like those Wigan kits (as much as it pains me to say so). The sponsor thing is odd. I know Celtic do it with breweries and betting companies but iqonic?

For what is the best supported and most watched club in the League its hardly surprising they are prioritised by the TV broadcasters (just as Man U and Liverpool are).

That's because there's only 2/3rds of a ground to fill I'm surprised more KR away games haven't been picked tbh

Yeah it is certainly the best of that bunch

Sorry, was referring to the paragraphs you quoted.

It will be interesting to see how French TV can be leveraged with 2 teams now. Sky taking a feed from a local broadcaster could add to those numbers. The list itself is not surprising, the bottom 4 English sides are the sides you'd expect (though I feel bad for KR who are both exciting and take a good away following).

I don't know why it needs spelling out more clearly? The first paragraph says there are scheduling dilemmas, then that there is a large event on round 14 or 15, and then that pitch renovations will be taking place from then. The second para then says this period covers a 6 rounds.