RayCee

Attendances can vary across a full season too. It gives a glimpse of what is happening but the end of the season figure is the critical one.

By replacing Wakefield's first four games with London's first four from 2024, the total goes down from 17.0% to 13.7%. Thanks for showing the interest in the subject in a positive way, in wanting more detail. Some can be superficially quick to see negatives with a 'glass half empty' attitude.

Thanks for the appreciation. If the Vegas figure is removed, the increase for Wigan is 30.2% increase which is still a good figure. When I went to see what Wakefield's difference made, I realised I'd made a mistake with the totals and average. I'll fix that and then see what difference Wakey has had.

SL attendance progress report: https://rugbyl.blogspot.com/2025/05/super-league-attendances-2025-rounds-1-9.html

Auckland is the epicentre of RL in NZ. The Waikato area south of Auckland has a decent following but mainly in smaller towns rather than the main city Hamilton. Taranaki is reasonably strong, particularly in the Waitara area to the north of the province. Northland and Wellington have pockets of RL success but neither are that strong. In the South Island Canterbury doesn't have a huge following but is well run and surprisingly successful when playing in regional comps. The West Coast was strong but with the population falling over many years with the end of mining it's a shadow of its former self. The deep south and a few other places there are pockets that have some RL but not much. In other words, it's Auckland, Auckland, Auckland with Canterbury the only other area that does well but on a much smaller scale. I don't know of any recent developments that would add to that.

I assume your comment has a tongue in cheek element as of course there is cooperation. The quality of the cooperation is questionable though. RL in the UK isn't that financial and the house of cards reference is about how secure a sport is with reducing media income and a reliance on benefactors to make up the shortfall.

I don't have a complete understanding of how finances operate in UK RL . Are the clubs in SL all reliant on benefactors putting in money to keep them viable? Most spend up to their salary cap limit but still rely on assistance from a generous owner to meet costs. Does that mean the cap is too high or is it the marquee allowance the reason? With the SRD's situation, was that an anomaly is RL in the UK a house of cards living beyond its means and at risk of this being repeated? Do things need to change to put clubs on a more financially secure footing or is it just fine the way it is?

Had Salford been involved in a documentary series on the club, recent events would have been riveting viewing. Of course, revenue generated through the show would have been helpful.

After years of little to cheer, Wakey fans have reason to be optimistic what with a revamped stadium and a team that has a bit of swagger about it.

And I thought I knew all the dwarf's names.

That is why Australia left the Oceania Group. It could benefit NZ too but I feel NZ staying helps the Island nations to lift their standard so I'm happy to see NZ remain in this federation.

I think your England team is about right. As for 48 sides for the World Cup, it has opened things up. NZ used to win the Oceania Group (Australia isn’t in that) then play a best losing team from another group, meaning they usually fell at the last hurdle. They only had to win the Oceania Group this time which they did, beating New Caledonia in the final match. The highlights are on YouTube.

England 3-0 Latvia. Some suggest a poor result but unlike RL where superiority is clearly reflected on the scoresheet, not always in football. So five goals and two clean sheets is OK. The Tuchel era has only just begun and will take longer to assess than two games against lower ranked sides. Sterner opposition will come and how they handle that will say a lot more.

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.