Of course there's an answer. There's a solution to every problem.

Well what is it then that has any chance of all the parties involved agreeing to and will actually be implemented?

Slightly off topic but Ive been thinking more about ticket pricing because I don't normally take much notice but I have been seeing more adverts for this Sundays game which is great but I just wonder the clubs thinking around the young adult pricing and age range. I think something needs to be done in this area as I think we would all agree money is getting tighter and tighter but I just don't get the age range and the thinking behind it.

A lot of young ones now are in education till at least 18 so the age range of 16-18 are quite unlikely to be able to afford the prices that the club charge at the moment and I don't know if this is just me but it seems to be reflected in the demographic on the terraces almost as though there is a whole generation of people missing as the club has done a lot of work in the community which is fantastic and every week you see the young kids around the stadium but then it just seems to be a lot of the older generations after that. Maybe a re-think of the pricing and age ranges for the young adult tickets are needed.

Young people especially children with an adult should be free, others from 16-18 should be something like £5.

PS: and anyone on here with a user name from G to T should be charged double.

There's been quite a few suggestions on here, and although not ideal and quite painful, are probably better than the status quo. Just because you don't agree with the ideas it doesn't mean nothing can be done.

The question was, what was the chances of all the parties involved agreeing to any of the ideas on here or anywhere else and implementing them?

It’s not about what I think seeing because I’m not one of the players who have to agree.

You pointed out that Bradford and Fev blocked a motion for a TV deal. It's ridiculous that just a couple of clubs can block stuff. The clubs HAVE to get together and a minority shouldn't be allowed to veto motions. Otherwise all clubs will continue to lose circa £200k a year and we all know where that'll eventually end up.

I don't think the mooted tv deal was worth owt like £200,000 a year for championship clubs.

I wasn't suggesting a TV deal would cover losses. My point was getting all the clubs together to make fundamental changes, the TV deal just being an example of the tail wagging the dog.

You can’t solve a problem, but you can solve a negative situation

It was more than just Bulls and Rovers.

Against were Bradford, Batley, Dewsbury, Doncaster, Featherstone, Wakefield and Widnes.

For were Swinton, Halifax, York, Barrow, Sheffield and Toulouse.

Didn't vote. Whitehaven.

The RFL didn't have to accept the vote and could have forced it through but decided to do nothing.

That apart it's just an example of the difficulties of getting anyone to agree on anything and getting it implemented.

Fair enough,majority against...think it was a paltry figure on offer anyway...

I see London's sugar daddy, David Hughes, has had enough and wants to sell the club. Probably explains why their 2023 accounts still haven't been filed, being nearly a month overdue. So I'll give you London's 2022 results - an eye watering £27.3 million net liabilities and a £1.5 million loss.

So I've no idea how much Hughes is expecting to get from the "sale". He'd struggle to give it away IMO.

Therefore, in summary, assuming London's financial position didn't improve in 2023, they take the prize for being the most heavily in debt at £27.3 million, overtaking Huddersfield's £15.7 million with Wigan in 3rd at £10.5 million. Leeds are the richest with net assets of £11.4 million but that includes their ground at almost £9 million. likewise Cas in 2nd with net assets of £4.1 million which includes the ground of £8.2 million and Saints in 3rd with net assets of £2.2 million but including a ridiculously valued lease of £31.7 million.

Overall a right mess. Now I know why they used to call the promotion decider "the million pound game", because that's how much you would expect to lose each year in Super League.

I’ve often said without a sugar daddy we’ve no chance but after looking at some of the accounts of those with them maybe it’s time for the entire game to get back to reality and all start drinking tea without.

It only takes Sky to walk away and those at the top have the furthest to fall.

Exactly. The top division in sport is supposed to be a great money earner, but it costs millions of sugar daddy money to merely survive in Super League. What a joke, eh?