RayCee

The highlighted part is understandable. The clubs are going to look at what's good for themselves. Their job isn't to see the bigger picture. There should be a governing body overseeing the game that is more powerful than the clubs and that makes decisions for the benefit of the game as a whole.

I think taking Rugby League as a name was a marketing mistake. The word Rugby has caused confusion and links us to a sport we want to be distinct from. It's a shame that the game was founded in Huddersfield as putting that in the name wouldn't work. Super League sounds exciting but I have resigned myself to the fact that RL is going to stay.

Agreed and I'm a Liverpool fan. This is a good Liverpool squad but not a great one. There aren't any great teams in the EPL this season. Liverpool is succeeding in the league due to having a balanced and settled squad and finding ways to win. The contenders are helping due to their inconsistency. I hope LFC can hold their form to take the league but it's not done and dusted.

At least you have a happy gaggle.

I read about the return of Nigel Wood at the BBC and came here for some understanding of its significance. I have read through posts (quickly) but still don't understand what it's going to achieve. Perhaps I'm not sufficiently au fait with the politics of RL in the UK. It seems this is about some clubs wanting a return to the way things were prior to IMG's involvement and they have now got the power to achieve that through Nigel Wood's temporary appointment. Is that what I'm reading?

Well prophets are usually the ones that come up with ideas first.

Companies charge what customers are prepared to pay. If that means a much greater profit margin, all the better.

Catalan have been poor on attack. Until that is sorted, hard to pick them as winners.

Warrington by 10.

I've just finished watching episode 11 of the US Traitors, the final although there is going to be a review episode I'd imagine. I won't spoil it for any still to see it.

Apparently there was a smash and grab job in Paris. The suspects have legged it England.

You would think so but that figure is an estimate and it seems no official count is available for the first game. Taking a broader view on the attendance, all the clubs that went had supporters who traveled to see their team. They all contributed to the 45k peak attendance. It then became a lottery as to how many watched a game depending when a game was played. The earliest match was at a disadvantage as the crowd built up during the day. Should the first up teams be penalised for that, while other sides benefited from supporters of those early bird teams? All the teams contributed to the success of the event.

I hadn't thought of that not living in the UK.

YHis may have been mentioned as I haven't read all the posts. Had the women's test been played first and the Wigan Warriors match third in its place, it would have been much better. The crowd built as the day progressed and putting the SL game on first seemed hard to fathom when the SL match was going to be more of a spectacle with less risk of a blowout score.

The article below covered attendance figures for SL last week. Interestingly it said: It’s believed there were actually between 11-12,000 in the venue when Wigan and Wire played their clash out, but the attendance officially goes down as over 45,000. From that it seems the actual attendance is an estimate and officially it's the full figure. I assume when they say officially, they have checked. To read the article, click on the link below. Link to article