Interesting.

From that, warrington have the toughest run in, with cas the most favourable. Wigan and hudds in second behind cas for favourable run in.

Very hard to make an accurate prediction but based on the fact theres no CC for them to worry about, there's a reasonably favourable run in (in comparison to others) and a superior points difference I'd say wigan will finish in the top 2.

The priority for leeds (besides the CC) should be securing a home tie in the playoffs and so a top 2 finish.

It'll be a squeeker based on that run in though.

The points difference is no longer something we can rely on, and saints although they have lost walsh have a good record at headingly. Then we finish with tricky games at hull and wigan.

You would like to think we would beat bradford and london and not suffer an upset, and then beat saints on account of 'home advantage' and no walsh, which hopefully would be enough (based on other teams dropping points in other games) to secure top 2.

Can't ever remeber a run in as tight as this.

Fair enough and you're probably right about folk not paying it. Without the extra being spent on the team, why would they? Can't comment on football as my interest there is zero but if you look towards the top union sides - the ones where our poached players tend to end up - then their prices are a lot higher than ours. For a spectacle that is, in my view, inferior.

I can understand why clubs can't afford to run a reserve team. We currently have a squad of 25 plus any Acadmey players that make the step up. To have a reserve team you would realistically need an additional 10 players as a minimum, which would probably add in the region of £250k to the wage bill. It was OK in the past where the players were part time and therefore the running costs were much less but it just doesn't stack up financially now.

Also, I may be mistaken, but the NRL teams don't have a reserve teams as such do they? Don't any players not selected go to a form of feeder club in the NSW / Queensland comps? I'm sure that in the NRL games I've seen there have been comments about part timers being called up to first grade during a bad spell with injuries or losing a lot of players during the rep period. I don't see that beoing held up as an example of the NRL being in poor health.

I don't have any stats to back this up but I think you see proportionately far more women/kids/families at RL games than at football. I think it is generally seen as more "family friendly" than football.

I agree, I think links with the elite side are important for amateur clubs to increase/retain participation. As you say the kids look up to the top players and to have some link with them is what really gets the kids excited. Just playing a half time game at Headingley is a massive deal for a lot of kids! But I don't think the performances of the team has much effect on the kids because they don't understand it yet. I'd agree that the performances, especially at home, has an effect on the parents though.
Whilst on the links with amateur clubs, it frequently annoys me how little the pro & semi clubs do in that regard. Even clubs like Leeds, I think, could do an awful lot more. Some individual players do a lot but clubs as a whole I think are pretty poor in this respect. I think they vastly underestimate the effect of just a couple of players turning up and passing a ball around with kids for half an hour has on those kids.

Agree entirely with your first paragraph. It's something that both angers and confounds me at the same time. It turns so many kids and adults away from our sport.

Isn't the Holden cup competition in Australia for the under 23s from the NRL clubs?