The Masked Poster

You think Salford Council Tax payers won't care if the rugby club owes them a significant amount of money? Especially in today's world? I think you might be wrong.

And would it still be the premier event it now is if the stadium was half empty?

Do you think such a viewership (is that a word?) would be achievable with the game at Headingley or St Helens? I'm not sure the venue is such a factor in the viewers for this.

Yes, my concern is that, like in life sometimes, when things aren't compulsory or you simply *have* to do it, it's usually the path of least resistance that is followed. At least however, I suppose Huddersfield would be actually building a new stadium so that would be a definite plus in this case.

Did I mention my memory is terrible?

That was actually pretty good. From memory Fev played in the final??

As I said, I'm not particularly looking at Huddersfield here, more the thinking that if something is hard to do (grow attendances) we just move the goalposts and change the criteria. It may be Huddersfield in this example but it will be another club with a different problem next time.

I'm not saying that there are not many positive reasons for moving grounds, mainly for the ones you list above. I agree Huddersfield would probably benefit from a change of ground. It's just that lowering standards rarely results in those standards ever coming back. That's my concern. Why should clubs spend time and money increasing attendances when they can just use smaller stadia? Or lower the criteria for those stadia? Anyway, we'll see what pertains.

I understand that it's more important financially to have a thousand customers paying premium prices than two thousand all using Groupon, I do understand that their are other areas that affect all round success, such as your example of Leeds. It's just that Huddersfield seem to be lacking in all those metrics. But my main area of concern is a wider one. Do other clubs follow suit if their attendances don't seem to be growing? These things rarely happen in isolation.

That's a fair point.

I didn't mention them improving crowds, which would be great. Keeping the same numbers in a smaller stadium does not solve the problem. It makes it seem better.

The problem with lowering standards is they eventually become the norm and then used as the yardstick. Thus if Huddersfield move to a 12k stadium and still struggle for crowds, is the answer to then move to an 8k stadium? I absolutely understand the argument about a fuller stadium generating a better atmosphere, because it's true. But we shouldn't lower the bar and pretend it's progress.

Sam Stone came home, to his wife and family. After serving in the conflict overseas. And the time that he'd served, had shattered all his nerves. And left a little shrapnel in his knee. (With apologies for anyone who doesn't know John Prine)

That they sold it in 1997, just a couple of years into the original SL deal indicates even more that finances weren't great. And while we're on that era, what about the huge amount of SL money numerous clubs spunked on various average players and Aussies? Jason Robinson and Gary Connolly both signed ARL deals, I doubt they got out of those deals for free. Financial prudence wasn't really a thing for most clubs.

You called them a basket case who should not be allowed in SL.