This works both ways. What makes you think that people would get behind such a venture? Sport in this country most often draws on a strong sense of geographical loyalty, particularly in morte "minority" sports (football clubs as 'global brands' are sometimes a bit different). You could end up with a strong club backed by two towns. Or, you could end up with a contrived entity that nobody much cares about (see Leeds Tykes or whatever they're called now).

Take Leeds Rhinos as an example, then look at other sports, Leeds United say, or Sheffield Ice Hockey team.

The Rhinos have supporters constantly coming to games from well outside the Leeds area. Leeds United have supporters at games from other countries, never mind many from the south of the country. Sheffield Ice Hockey team are not just supported from Sheffield.

The geographical loyalty is an excuse in reality. Rugby League sells it's self on the product it has to offer. As the product diminishes less fans will watch. As the product enhances, more will watch.

Take the two clubs from the championship, who are going nowhere let's be honest. A huge catchment area, a huge talent pool, one an extremely strongly run club who defy the odds constantly, and the other a poor run club but with the facilities that the strongly run one so desires. What you have together is a very good product, bringing the positives of both sides to join. As that club then improves and is playing in a better competition, fans will want to see that product.

Then look at Catalans. Who supports them when they play in this country? they bring more to away games than London and Salford. There not french, no it is other fans from the UK who have an interest in them.

Huddersfield were already in - albeit not as competitive on the field as Sheffield were.

The bit that's hard to understand is why you're either ignoring what happened to Sheffield in 2000 or thinking a future merger between existing SL clubs wouldn't end up looking similar.

How big will the RFL merger sweetener be this time? IIRC it was £1 million in 1999, would the mergers have gone ahead without it?

The Huddersfield/Sheffield team did play a couple of it's games in the steel city but they were shunned to such an extent that it was looking pointless to take any more there so they didn't, not that Huddersfield saw an upturn in their attendances either - while on the field the merged club won four games from twenty-eight to finish bottom and three of those were V Wakefield by a combined aggregate plus score of ten.

Because what happened previously is nothing like what is been suggested on this thread. Sheffield previously was not a merger, and could never have been regarded as any potential of success.

I don’t think anyone would suggest a merger in the form of a hudds/Sheffield or Gateshead/hull merger would be the way to go.

However I would take issue with the assumption that those mergers weren’t a success. Compare where Hull and Hudds were pre-merger to now. They are in a much much stronger position.

The failures of those mergers quite clearly, imo, wasn’t the failure to take two struggling clubs and make one strong one because they did that (Hull and Hudds now are stronger entities than pre-merger Hudds, Hull, Gateshead and Sheffield). It was a failure for those mergers to keep one party of the merger interested. Quite big distances separate Hull and Gateshead and Hudds and Sheffield, neither club did much, if anything, to create and identity which represented both parties of the merger. Their locations and history made it pretty impossible.

This wouldn’t need to be addressed in the same way, and there wouldn’t be the same problems encountered in crafting an identity which covers not only Wakefield but Cas and Fev as well. To be fair, that identity has existed for 30+ years, its called the Wakefield Metropolitan District. That’s the only hurdle a merged club would need to overcome, to sell the team as a team not for Wakefield, not for Cas, not for Fev but for all of them, and others. That wasn’t ever a possibility for the other two mergers.

If we merged Wakefield, Cas and Fev and got one Hull FC sized club, with a good supporter base, good sponsors, a quality stadium, a decent size and a strong off-field presence (ignoring Mr Pearsons blame game) then that would be a plus for the game.

Being.

And if Sheffield were never involved in a merger, then whats this?

If Cas & Wakefield won't even share a stadium, what chance is there of anything else happening?

I agree (looking at it from the outside) that situation could work in theory if the boards of Wakefield and Castleford could come together with a joint plan for a new club and a new stadium - an almost unique opportunity at this time - although others better informed may argue the opposite.

As much as Leeds and other fans may wish it to happen for the benefit of SL they're not the ones faced with making the sacrifice.

It's quite interesting though that those two are the ones brought up regularly. Isn't it stated by both clubs that they are the only two clubs in super league who are/can not spend the total salary cap?

What we need is a competition where the cap is increased whilst still maintaining a competition. If the rest of super league are dumbed down purely on the basis of those two clubs not able to not only increase but not meet the current cap, then really this where the game steps in and issues ultimatums.

I think ground shares are more feasable than total mergers in some cases and at least they then can share running costs which in turn should make them £££££ more viable.
I do agree with the cutting the number of clubs though and P+R.
Do you think the RFL are strong enough to issue those ultimatums you mention Gotcha i personally don't.

The RFL won't force the two clubs to merge. They will be offered a choice: merge or get kicked out. If the fans respectively would rather watch two semi-pro teams fighting it out against Featherstone, Halifax and Leigh every year for a second-tier crown, they are welcome. But the boards of the respective clubs know that that is the quick road to a club being dead. When Leeds, Bradford & Huddersfield are playing SL succesfully with better grounds, better product and more media coverage, how the hell do you expect Wakey & Cas to succeed?

The simple fact is that Wakey & Cas have neither the command of a fanbase nore the infrastructure to become a succesful club, and alone they never will, as they split the support in the area and double their running costs. So you end up with two struggling clubs that will never work in the long run.

People say 'it's always these two'-mainly because the problem is most noticeable there. Hull KR, in a city of 500,000 people, should be able to get above 10k a year with support & success. Widnes potentially similar in the long run, although the only club you could merge them with is Warrington, who are already one of the 'Big Six'. The reason we talk about Wakey & Cas is because there are problems intrinsic to those clubs not shared by others.

FWIW though, I'm also concerned about Huddersfield, and their failure to attract crowds despite their on-field improvement in recent years. I'd suggest that a Hudds-Fax merger might be necessary for those two clubs to work in the long run.

But if Cas & Wakey fans really hate a merger so much, fine. Kick them out of SL, drop the number of teams. Increase the quality of the player pool clubs can choose from by freeing up most of their squads, and make other teams more competitive. Hull FC have wanted Chase for a long time, I'm sure Tim Smith will get a gig somewhere decent, and bring that team into strong contention.

No I don't. But I think that is more to do with the backward thinking of fans of the game, examples as seen on this thread, than to do with the actual administrators. There is a fear of change, not only from fans, but society in general.

I am believer in Noah, "build it and they will come". I am all for a super league of strong teams with a larger geographical area (rather than next door to one another), who can spend an higher cap than we have now.

Fair points but i think it would be more viable to push towards ground shares as a first attempt at better run clubs rather than a threat of "merge or you're out".
I do agree changes are needed though.

What would the ground sharing achieve?

You will still have two poorly run clubs who hold back the rest of the competition just because they can't match them.

For me you need a top flight club from the Wakefield/castleford district. The two current clubs though are holding back the league. Do we just accept that and continue, or do we go with one club better resourced?

I think ground sharing would make both clubs financially stronger because of shared costs thus making more ££££ to put into their junior development etc etc.
Not only that a ground share approach wouldn't alienate the supporters half as much as a forced merger would imo.
Of course the clubs involved have to be run properly and i think stronger sanctions are needed for those clubs who are'nt getting run properly.