League Restructure Thread (Merged Threads)

[Scubby]

18 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Bad example Martyn, Japan found Bobby Susuki, Jason Yamamoto and Greg Takahashi along with another 5 or 6 6'-8" white caucasian Japanese nationals to make them more competitive, just saying.

And a sht load of money as Japan RU is essentially run by large private companies. It also took 18 years to come to fruition and millions and millions in investment. Japan's population is also 126m.

This idea is kicking around historic working class towns and pit villages - some with populations of 15-20,000. The level of social disadvantages of these towns is so far removed from all these crazy NFL, Japan RU, Gaelic Football examples that it is turning the whole thing into a fast show style parody. 

[The Rocket]

52 minutes ago, Scubby said:

How do six top clubs get much stronger and how quickly can you do this? How can you add 2-3 other strong (and commercially attractive) clubs to that as quickly as possible.

There`s the challenge, fix that and everything else will follow, it may be the only situation where `trickle down` economics might actually work, because for once the pyramid is so shallow.

Getting the international game up and running would probably be another area where you could get a big bang for your buck.

Everything else is hot air.

[Scubby]

Just now, The Rocket said:

There`s the challenge, fix that and everything else will follow, it may be the only situation where `trickle down` economics might actually work, because for once the pyramid is so shallow.

Getting the international game up and running would probably be another area where you could get a big bang for your buck.

Everything else is hot air.

Exactly, the ECB are throwing £300m behind an attempt to change the face of cricket with The Hundred. It is a huge investment and pretty ruthless smashing the 18 counties into 8 new franchises. It is not going to fail through lack of investment though.

We have tried and tried to mess about with radical restructure plans but the game is so poor it is attempted to be done on zero or falling investment. This has not only weakened the game but also weakened its prize assets - the top clubs.

[Derwent Parker]

19 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Well, if the current positions in the league were the finishing positions, let's look at the fixtures for the clubs that are currently at the top and at the bottom of the league.

Catalans fixtures outside their own Conference would be: St Helens, Warrington, Wigan, Hull KR, Leeds, Hull FC, Castleford, Huddersfield, Salford, Wakefield, Leigh, Halifax, Bradford, Whitehaven, York

West Wales fixtures would be: Coventry, Hunslet, Keighley, Rochdale, Doncaster, Barrow, Workington, Swinton, Oldham, Dewsbury, Newcastle, Widnes, Sheffield, Batley, Featherstone

I think West Wales would love that.

Better than playing 9 teams at home and 9 teams at Away and will get better gates.

[Harry Stottle]

50 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I'd almost be tempted to ask the whole pro game who would be able to commit to a minimum spend of XX, stick those clubs in SL, and make that a condition of promotion to SL in the future. The flaw with my idea is that it may result in a division of 6 clubs...

And.......... I think it would result in only 6 clubs forming a league, but would that be a bad thing for all the rest of the clubs?

In the last 10 years or so I have had the advantage of watching SL 3 or more times a week on TV, and for the majority of that time not missed many Championship games that my club has been involved in, and I will say that for entertainment value with the type of RL that is played in the Championship it would soon start to gain popularity, there are 6 or 7 strong Championship clubs and with the addition of the 6 SL clubs joining them that league format could be very interesting indeed, no way am I saying they could beat those 6 elite clubs but the Rugby on show would be more open and aesthetically pleasing other that the 5 drives and a kick so prevalent in SL.

The talent in the Championship would be spread out mire between the clubs for financial reasons and games would become very competitive and hopefully bring the fans back. 

Yes Geeky, I like that idea, and one more stipulation, no DR ever again from SL to the Championship.

Doesn't a League of In no particular order:-

Bradford, Cas, Halifax, Newcastle, Salford, Huddersfield, Toulouse, Leigh, Featherstone, HKR, Widnes, York, Batley, Wakefield and Whitehaven.

A 15 team League of 28 fixtures, P&R from L1 on a on up one down basis, what's not to like?

Best structure idea yet.

[Hela Wigmen]

Honestly, Sadler’s got to be a parody, hasn’t he? Comparing himself to Bill Gates, bloody hell. 

[Derwent Parker]

15 hours ago, JonM said:

I think it's an interesting idea, and certainly wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. I think there are some good features - the 'whole game' aspect, the removal of the cliff-edge between full-time superleague and part-time championship, the varied fixture list and so on. I think plenty of similar sports to us operate with a conference or pool system, really don't see any issue with people understanding how it works. I like that it gives more clubs the chance to win something, and with suitable scheduling, a big tv game every week (it's not just two random SL clubs playing, it's first vs second in the Billy Boston conference or whatever). I think it needs a system where the conferences can be of unequal sizes -  the 'three countries' conference is pretty unconvincing, and I would tend towards not using geographic names. The conference make-up needs more thought too - why would you split up Saints & Wigan, or Leeds & Bradford? 

French RU operated with something not entirely different, before the advent of the Top14 and the Pro D2 - at one point, there were 64 clubs in the top league, organised in 8 pools of 8. Their Federale system is still in regional pools, and is complicated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fédérale_1

The drawbacks are obvious. One of the problems of modern RL is that results are too predictable. Saints can play Whitehaven, Workington, Barrow & Widnes 8 times and there will pretty much never be a surprise result, unlike football where an occasional upset is possible. I don't see those games as being particularly attractive to fans, tv or sponsors. Nor do I see any 'levelling up' happening very quickly. Not convinced that having our top players play approx a third of their games against a significantly lower standard of opposition helps the England team.

Martyn - how do you envisage academies and the loan/dual reg system working with this setup? Dual reg only to clubs in other conferences? 

Dual Reg should be scrapped.

All teams should be allowed to run 'A; teams with a full fixture list- At least all teams outside of SL as they have academies?

This will stop the young Amateur lads going back to their local leagues because they cant get a match.

A team like mine may have 20 [for example] signed players and bring in 12 [for example] local good amateur players at start of season - but only 18 of the 32 are going to get a game unless you have a major injury crisis, so 14 lads are not getting a game - so eventually some drift away = if there was A teams they would all get a game - it also allows injured players an easier comeback and allows teams to bridge the gap with the local teams better.

[Derwent Parker]

11 hours ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

When was that??

Pre SL

Or rather before some teams started getting millions and the others getting peanuts

[Derwent Parker]

11 hours ago, Scubby said:

Have you read it? You obviously don't understand

The only way to make it more competitive is by weakening Saintsand Warrington to such an extent that their crowds and revenues dip to historic lows and they can no longer attract top players. Race to the bottom.

over exaggerating again

Giving all teams equal CF 600 k each [for example] instead of 1.8M for some and 80k for rest would mean Saints and Warrington [your examples] would be each 1M less would not weaken them both to such an extent that their crowds and revenues dip to historic lows

But it would make 24 teams healthier

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Derwent Parker said:

over exaggerating again

Giving all teams equal CF 600 k each [for example] instead of 1.8M for some and 80k for rest would mean Saints and Warrington [your examples] would be each 1M less would not weaken them both to such an extent that their crowds and revenues dip to historic lows

But it would make 24 teams healthier

But you wouldn't get the funding for £600k each. So everybody is worse off.

[The Rocket]

29 minutes ago, Scubby said:

We have tried and tried to mess about with radical restructure plans but the game is so poor it is attempted to be done on zero or falling investment. This has not only weakened the game but also weakened its prize assets - the top clubs.

I agree with you whole heartedly on this, the top clubs are your biggest asset, you have to make them stronger not weaker. They`ll add the glamour, they`ll bring in the casual viewers. It`s why we have the same teams on TV every week over here, it`s not just for their fans, but because our broadcaster knows who are the teams casual viewers are more likely to tune in for.

But anyway, where is this money going to come from to rebuild them. The example you used was to be signing the Trent Barretts of the world.

The current level of Sky funding probably won`t be enough, are you suggesting the game should start courting private equity, and what about the 6 blokes sitting around the table who mightn`t fit in with your long-term plans.

I think you`ve been talking a lot of sense, but what would your road map be out of the current problems and how would you suggest it be funded. As a starting point I also agree with what you said earlier, the time may have come to be ruthless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

I agree with you whole heartedly on this, the top clubs are your biggest asset, you have to make them stronger not weaker. They`ll add the glamour, they`ll bring in the casual viewers. It`s why we have the same teams on TV every week over here, it`s not just for their fans, but because our broadcaster knows who are the teams casual viewers are more likely to tune in for.

But anyway, where is this money going to come from to rebuild them. The example you used was to be signing the Trent Barretts of the world.

The current level of Sky funding probably won`t be enough, are you suggesting the game should start courting private equity, and what about the 6 blokes sitting around the table who mightn`t fit in with your long-term plans.

I think you`ve been talking a lot of sense, but what would your road map be out of the current problems and how would you suggest it be funded. As a starting point I also agree with what you said earlier, the time may have come to be ruthless.

This was the big lesson of Super League for the past 25 years.

In the first 15 years, Wigan, Leeds, Saints and particularly Bradford really took the concept on and pushed hard. Increasing crowds by significant amounts. Whilst Bradford's star faded, Warrington and to a certain extent Hull FC carried on in their place and we've had the addition of Catalans doing the same in France. 

Behind that however, growth stumbled. Cas, Huddersfield and Hull KR (for various reasons) haven't kicked on as hoped and made the jump from 7k on a good day crowds to 5 figure regulars with the top clubs. The first 2 have dropped off those figures and KR were relegated so have done well to maintain them. Leigh could potentially be included in this group, though in this current predicament they are slipping away.

Then we have the likes of Salford, Wakefield, Widnes and London Broncos who have been unable to grow at all in the past 15 years despite extended spells in Super League in that time. 

When seen like that you can appreciate why the whole game now seems stumbling and without momentum. Perhaps these other clubs were never capable of kicking on to join the big boys and we should have been looking elsewhere all along, but it is undeniable that in the past 10 years the momentum of Super League has stalled.

Ideally we want more clubs to grow to the size of the first group, even overtaking them if possible. The only thing the structure has to do is facilitate that.

[Hela Wigmen]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

This was the big lesson of Super League for the past 25 years.

In the first 15 years, Wigan, Leeds, Saints and particularly Bradford really took the concept on and pushed hard. Increasing crowds by significant amounts. Whilst Bradford's star faded, Warrington and to a certain extent Hull FC carried on in their place and we've had the addition of Catalans doing the same in France. 

Behind that however, growth stumbled. Cas, Huddersfield and Hull KR (for various reasons) haven't kicked on as hoped and made the jump from 7k on a good day crowds to 5 figure regulars with the top clubs. The first 2 have dropped off those figures and KR were relegated so have done well to maintain them. Leigh could potentially be included in this group, though in this current predicament they are slipping away.

Then we have the likes of Salford, Wakefield, Widnes and London Broncos who have been unable to grow at all in the past 15 years despite extended spells in Super League in that time. 

When seen like that you can appreciate why the whole game now seems stumbling and without momentum. Perhaps these other clubs were never capable of kicking on to join the big boys and we should have been looking elsewhere all along, but it is undeniable that in the past 10 years the momentum of Super League has stalled.

Ideally we want more clubs to grow to the size of the first group, even overtaking them if possible. The only thing the structure has to do is facilitate that.

As an aside to the above, from the “clubs who haven’t kicked on”, all three have been relegated and then promoted again in the past twenty years and those “unable to grow”, Salford, Widnes and London have been relegated and promoted in the past fifteen or so years. Can we expect clubs to “kick on” or “grow” when there is a trap door and subsequent reduction in central funding should they be relegated? 

[Moove]

25 minutes ago, Derwent Parker said:

over exaggerating again

Giving all teams equal CF 600 k each [for example] instead of 1.8M for some and 80k for rest would mean Saints and Warrington [your examples] would be each 1M less would not weaken them both to such an extent that their crowds and revenues dip to historic lows

But it would make 24 teams healthier

Where do you think Saints and Warrington should reduce costs to cover the £1.2m shortfall you suggest if not on playing contracts? And without weakening the on/off field product as you say is possible?

Whichever way you slice and dice it the current top teams would be weaker and given that the current top teams are the reason we have that money available in the first place it's an utterly bat poop crazy idea.

[Scubby]

51 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

I agree with you whole heartedly on this, the top clubs are your biggest asset, you have to make them stronger not weaker. They`ll add the glamour, they`ll bring in the casual viewers. It`s why we have the same teams on TV every week over here, it`s not just for their fans, but because our broadcaster knows who are the teams casual viewers are more likely to tune in for.

But anyway, where is this money going to come from to rebuild them. The example you used was to be signing the Trent Barretts of the world.

The current level of Sky funding probably won`t be enough, are you suggesting the game should start courting private equity, and what about the 6 blokes sitting around the table who mightn`t fit in with your long-term plans.

I think you`ve been talking a lot of sense, but what would your road map be out of the current problems and how would you suggest it be funded. As a starting point I also agree with what you said earlier, the time may have come to be ruthless.

It is little different from someone coming into a business to identify its strengths if cut backs are needed. All 36 clubs can currently spend the £1.9m salary if they choose to but only perhaps 8 are doing do (all in SL). Four in the top flight are paying less or significantly less and Toulouse may be close or similar to those four.

What the game needs is a significant investment in a stable 12-team competition initially. Don't pss about.

Invite early applications for 8 year participation licences - which requires a bond. At this stage, the top 6 clubs could do this straight away based on any criteria that SL wanted to create. They are in for 8 years and protected - done! They can help with the fund raising, planning ahead of a start in 2-3 years time (say 2024).

Those not anywhere near 8 year level can go for 4 years or 2 years on any individual basis until you fill places - the bond would be incremental. They are also against any new bids from outside SL.

If you are only awarded a 2 year licence - you are effectively on a one year standby and clubs can bid against you for renewal (either 2 or 4 years) with a year remaining. If Wakefield or Salford were only on a 2 year and Leigh or Newcastle or York or Bradford bid against them successfully they would be gone and back in the pot to reapply against whoever was lowest in terms of years remaining in the future.

This is all done by an independent commission - formed with the sole intention of strengthen the game and its financial growth. Not 12 existing SL member turkeys voting for Christmas FFS.

The idea is to get as many 8 year licence holders as possible with future applicants only bidding for 4 or 8 years based on how they built their club. So 12 can become 14 (or even 16 if you wanted) based only on those bids strong enough to earn a 4 or 8 year licence. If you fail to uphold standards or go into financial meltdown you can be stripped of years on your licence (e.g. 6 left down to 2)

P&R is basically unsustainable if you actually want to fund the semi professional game IMO. However, those struggling SL clubs scraping along with 2 year licences have basically a single target on their backs. New successful bids also have a year's preparation to be included into SL.

The other teams just go about building the strongest clubs they can possibly build and generate as much revenue as the possibly can. The aim is to raise standards to as high as you can not lower them. This I believe is much more palatable for outside investment than a race to the bottom. Some might not want to hear it but this is where we are after most clubs have had 50-100 years to figure it out.

A percentage of any SL pot then trickles into the semi professional and community game as a fixed levy. The more successful SL is the more money the other semi-pro clubs get.

 

[zylya]

I think the "league of 36 in 6 conferences" idea is fundamentally flawed. It seems to take some aspects from a variety of successful models but doesn't go wholesale into the model and therefore misses out some key components.

E.g. if you have unequal funding based on finishing position, you allow long-term structural inequality to develop - a team that earns £1.3million has a huge advantage over a team earning £80,000 and the differential allows that team to retain this advantage into the next season as well.

Even if you equalise the funding, you may reduce the differential between top and bottom teams, but you'll never truly eliminate it. The widely differing populations and demographics of some of the clubs involved means that they're never going to hit 20k+ audiences or be able to consistently produce top-level players. The numbers are just too small in some cases. There's already an issue with player numbers (in terms of player of a sufficient quality) - it would take 8-10 years minimum for new academy structures to start producing talent regularly - assuming no issues, adequate funding and enough players coming in at the start of the pipeline. Without picking on any individual club, how is, say, a Whitehaven (24k pop) or a Workington (25k pop) going to spin up an academy process to start generating these players to enable their team to get better. Where are they going to find the players in the intervening time?

Additionally, the whole plan relies on a number of "hopes" - namely that the investment will happen, that the competition will be adequately marketed and that broadcasters will happily pay at least the same, if not more. It also relies on a number of clubs improving significantly and quickly enough that their club's fanbase doesn't collapse nor does the competition's fanbase.

With broadcasters, I struggle to see how this new format will increase the amount of income or interest in the product. There are still top games within this new structure, but these already exist in the current format. So nothing has been added, except for a load of potentially mismatched games. Reduction of mismatches over time isn't an acceptable solution - there's too much potential for fans to become disinterested in the meanwhile.

For investment, marketing and other commercial functions, none of those are tied to this new structure. At the moment, the main driver for improvement in standards relies not on the new structure per se, but on the improvement of these commercial areas. Which begs the question, why the need for a new structure, if the new structure requires the same improvement in commercial input as the current structure?

 

For me, the problem has never been one of structure, but of investment - more specifically the lack thereof - not just financial but also in terms of promotion and development. There hasn't been enough done on a game-wide level to bring new people into the game - players, supporters, volunteers etc and especially at a community level. Decisions made a number of years ago are now having an impact. There aren't any short term fixes, as far as I can tell (although a strong marketing campaign would be the first change I'd make...).

Instead, there needs to be a long look at what they want the GAME (not just the Super League or any descendant competition) to look like in 25 years. As a whole structure rather than just tinkering at the top. Only then can we start moving towards it.

 

A couple of other random thoughts that give me an idea of where I would be looking if I was in the RFL:

• On my Facebook (as someone living outside the heartlands), despite liking the RFL and a number of other RL pages, I get more ads for watching GAA than I do for watching Rugby League. Thought this was interesting because someone mentioned GAA earlier. It's not something that interests me specifically, but they're obviously reaching out to people wider than their core areas in a way that Rugby League isn't
• The 6 nations is worth about £90 million in TV revenue alone per year. Not suggesting that a Rugby League comp would get that straightaway, but it's got to be worth looking into some international rugby. As mentioned, as someone outside the heartlands, I don't really have a team that I support (because there aren't any) so, really, England are my team. I don't own any RL gear except for England stuff. It would be nice to watch them play against another country one day!
• In terms of player numbers, obviously being restricted to a, relatively, small part of the country is always going to reduce available talent. A better geographic spread, led by a programme of expansion at a community level - i.e. schools etc supported by events such as Magic Weekend and Internationals would be more likely to create new players who could play at a professional level than a structure which may or may not bring in new financial investment

[Harry Stottle]

23 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

This was the big lesson of Super League for the past 25 years.

In the first 15 years, Wigan, Leeds, Saints and particularly Bradford really took the concept on and pushed hard. Increasing crowds by significant amounts. Whilst Bradford's star faded, Warrington and to a certain extent Hull FC carried on in their place and we've had the addition of Catalans doing the same in France. 

Behind that however, growth stumbled. Cas, Huddersfield and Hull KR (for various reasons) haven't kicked on as hoped and made the jump from 7k on a good day crowds to 5 figure regulars with the top clubs. The first 2 have dropped off those figures and KR were relegated so have done well to maintain them. Leigh could potentially be included in this group, though in this current predicament they are slipping away.

Then we have the likes of Salford, Wakefield, Widnes and London Broncos who have been unable to grow at all in the past 15 years despite extended spells in Super League in that time. 

When seen like that you can appreciate why the whole game now seems stumbling and without momentum. Perhaps these other clubs were never capable of kicking on to join the big boys and we should have been looking elsewhere all along, but it is undeniable that in the past 10 years the momentum of Super League has stalled.

Ideally we want more clubs to grow to the size of the first group, even overtaking them if possible. The only thing the structure has to do is facilitate that.

When I read comments like this Tommy and others that state the game should be centered around the big club's with more funding so that they can get stronger and attract more investment and fans I wonder if everyone wants best for the sport or just a few select club's.

It is like the argument that the SC should increase, who would benefit from that more than those 6 top clubs it would create an already big gap between them and the rest into much bigger wider chasm.

I posted something an hour or so ago - tongue in cheek - in allowing the "have's" - being those 6 club's who operate on different financial level from the rest of the "minions" to formulate their own competition, those 6 I am sure would be ecstatic in having the lions share of the funding, they would not get all the funding as I am sure Sky would most definitely broadcast games from the 15 team League that I suggested it would give much more variety than Wigan v Wire or Leeds v Saints 5 times a season, that is if Sky did not pull out the plug altogether.

So what was a "throw away" suggestion from me could really have if only it could be adopted have some substance to it, those top SL club's could feasibly get what they desire a bigger gap between them and the rest, and the division below could generate a lot of interest, get stronger and attract more people and sponsorship to a competitive division.

Would supporters of those top 6 back this idea, and if not why not?

[Harry Stottle]

31 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

As an aside to the above, from the “clubs who haven’t kicked on”, all three have been relegated and then promoted again in the past twenty years and those “unable to grow”, Salford, Widnes and London have been relegated and promoted in the past fifteen or so years. Can we expect clubs to “kick on” or “grow” when there is a trap door and subsequent reduction in central funding should they be relegated? 

Yes then it is time for the big 6 to break away, isn't it, why have the no hopers hanging off their shirt tails any longer?

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes then it is time for the big 6 to break away, isn't it, why have the no hopers hanging off their shirt tails any longer?

No one is saying the big clubs should have all the funding or that there should be unequal funding like we have seen in the Championship. Fans of some Championship clubs have been quite happy with that gap when it suits.

There is nothing unfair in allowing clubs that generate more income to spend more if they so desire.

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

When I read comments like this Tommy and others that state the game should be centered around the big club's with more funding so that they can get stronger and attract more investment and fans I wonder if everyone wants best for the sport or just a few select club's.

It is like the argument that the SC should increase, who would benefit from that more than those 6 top clubs it would create an already big gap between them and the rest into much bigger wider chasm.

I posted something an hour or so ago - tongue in cheek - in allowing the "have's" - being those 6 club's who operate on different financial level from the rest of the "minions" to formulate their own competition, those 6 I am sure would be ecstatic in having the lions share of the funding, they would not get all the funding as I am sure Sky would most definitely broadcast games from the 15 team League that I suggested it would give much more variety than Wigan v Wire or Leeds v Saints 5 times a season, that is if Sky did not pull out the plug altogether.

So what was a "throw away" suggestion from me could really have if only it could be adopted have some substance to it, those top SL club's could feasibly get what they desire a bigger gap between them and the rest, and the division below could generate a lot of interest, get stronger and attract more people and sponsorship to a competitive division.

Would supporters of those top 6 back this idea, and if not why not?

Yours is one of the clubs which would directly benefit from the salary cap being increased. I've said it loads on here, big clubs like the cap, it keeps their costs downs; small clubs like the cap, it keeps them in touching distance; ambitious clubs (and owners) hate the shackles of the cap.

The point I was making was that Super League needs to be an environment to build Super clubs. We want more clubs averaging over 10k so that the league gets bigger and grows collectively. Its a collective effort and sadly it has stumbled in the past 10 years.

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

No one is saying the big clubs should have all the funding or that there should be unequal funding like we have seen in the Championship. Fans of some Championship clubs have been quite happy with that gap when it suits.

There is nothing unfair in allowing clubs that generate more income to spend more if they so desire.

Yes but the conversation has been about centering on the big 6 to improve the chance of more investment done deem that to be the best way to go forward.

As a fan of one of the big 6 Damien would you not like to see your club in a comp of nothing but meaningful games against the other top 5 club's?

[redjonn]

13 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

That brings us onto the idea of what makes a sport exciting, which is a massive subject to consider.

For example, I've tried to watch football in the last 12 months or so, but I find it so boring that I just can't get beyond half-time, and the most boring matches are those involving the biggest teams.

I've tried to watch some of The Hundred, but again can't last more than an hour, while admiring the marketing effort that has attracted all those people to sit through those matches.

If you tried to get me to watch a Formula 1 Grand Prix race, I'd pay you £500 to avoid having to sit through it, while recognising that some people love it.

Who do you support?

I guess that is were a strong marketing organisation in all its different aspects helps to identify what it is that does not turn enough people to want to watch RL.  Looking at the whole product.    We are a country that has a large sports interested population, maybe not so sports minded as the USA, and to say the obvious we must be able to capture a larger portion of them. Part of that is making it easier for them to watch, assuming the action on the field gets them interested enough.

One thing I have always hated is the tag line "the greatest game" which I think has caused some to sit back and think the game on the field is so good to all and sundry.  Plus if somebody likes another sport that tag line is surely saying something to them about their choice of sport.

As to your question... I take more interest in both Saints and Leeds. My wife is an avid Leeds fan and hence that's the games we mostly attend given where we live. 

As supporters of RL and certain clubs we tend to be a little insular as to what a new audience may want to see.  As a fan all games whether lacking lots of passing and elusive running and just simple 5 drives and a don't know what else to do high kick will always have some interest. Even if just the anxiety that comes from not wanting your club/team to lose. 

[Scubby]

7 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes then it is time for the big 6 to break away, isn't it, why have the no hopers hanging off their shirt tails any longer?

 

 

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

No one is saying the big clubs should have all the funding or that there should be unequal funding like we have seen in the Championship. Fans of some Championship clubs have been quite happy with that gap when it suits.

There is nothing unfair in allowing clubs that generate more income to spend more if they so desire.

I remember as a kid from West Yorks wanting Wigan to get bigger and bigger. To sign bigger stars and get bigger crowds so they could break all records and RL would be on TV more. It was exciting. When they played the club I followed being part of a huge crowd at Central Park was amazing and shaped my view of the game - even if they handed out a thrashing.

What has changed that so many people want the best and biggest parts of our game to fail or be held back, or to be humbled? Why don't we want Wigan and Leeds getting 20k+ crowds again and signing top stars? 

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes but the conversation has been about centering on the big 6 to improve the chance of more investment done deem that to be the best way to go forward.

As a fan of one of the big 6 Damien would you not like to see your club in a comp of nothing but meaningful games against the other top 5 club's?

That hasn't been the conversation though. For me, and others based on posts on this page, it is about how that big 6 can become a big 12 or 14. How as a game we can best facilitate and encourage growth of existing, or new clubs, to add value to the competition and compete and even overtake the big 6.

To answer your question, no I wouldn't like to see that. I am completely against the 2x10s idea and have outlined my reasons why. Magnify those reasons by 100 for why I would be against 6.

[Hela Wigmen]

29 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes then it is time for the big 6 to break away, isn't it, why have the no hopers hanging off their shirt tails any longer?

You’re clearly not interested in constructing anything of note and have completely missed the point here.