One flaw with this ignore feature is that I can see what they've put when others quote it in their post.

Whilst what Sal wrote has a good point it went quite a bit off tangent to what I was writing about with his focus on junior levels and players to NRL.

He's trying to lay a large portion of blame on games like the one Leeds dished up on Friday as being one of the reasons the game can't attract NRL players or junior interest levels when most reasoned posters will realise their is a ton of much more serious and key reasons than Leeds and Bradford served up a knock-on-athon.

And whilst it sounds terribly noble and committed to dish out the "we're angry about poor performances because how it might effect the game in the long run" excuse. I think it's quite easy to see through that and the reality is (barring one or two) that the anger is simply down to spending £20-odd which they could've spent in the pub in the dry watching the Sky game instead......nothing at all to do with this heroic 'won't someone please think of the sports future' line. That's why most of the posts immediately after a game like Friday contain the classic "my hard earned cash" line.....yet I've seen none existent concern for what the juniors might've thought whilst watching those poor performances.

The last figures I saw showed junior participation increasing, but even if it's not it's got nothing to do with how Leeds play. Most of the kids playing RL in Leeds don't watch Leeds and many have only been to Headingley to play at half time.

There are many reasons why kids don't participate in RL, some within RL's control some not. The increase in single parent families and the increase in weekend and evening working means more parents either can't or don't want to give up the time to take their child to training or for a game. There are far more demands on people's time and much more competition than there used to be. Money is also an issue for some families.
Then there's the often disgraceful, aggressive and intimidating atmosphere at far too many amateur clubs. Add in egotistical, idiotic coaches and you get kids actively turned away from the sport.
But it's not to do with how Leeds are playing.

The point I am trying to make is this the game is lacking finance - as a result it cannot attract the quality of player that it once did especially those from the NRL. The chances of seeing players of the calibre of Lyon, Buderus, Furner etc in SL are slim to none in the foreseeable future. Most would agree the standard and spectacle on the field had diminished over the past few years - mostly due to the quality of its participants and its coaches. SL clubs have already suggested they cannot afford to fund reserve grade teams - does that sound like a sport in rude health?

The elite game drives interest in the sport - it is the pinnacle of the game in the UK, its showcase. Having a situation where good games are rarity cannot be healthy for the sport. It isn't about money for me - I am a season ticket holder so the £20 argument is a diversion on your part. Attendances at Leeds for the last six games are down on their counterparts from last season a couple are down by >2,000. What does that say - in an entertainment business people want value for money and perhaps what they see on the field doesn't represent that i.e. we all agree form has been poor since April this is starting to be reflected in attendances. Despite being one of the most successful clubs in RL season ticket sales at Leeds are reducing annually why is that?

To move this on Leedsrugby sees a drop in revenue and profitability, what is likely to happen? Leeds are to instigate investment in marketing to recover lost ground or they will tighten their belts further, that will impact the quality on the field.

A vibrant elite game will help participation - the life blood of the game. The world cup was brilliant that should have impacted participation positively - too early to tell, Sport England will no doubt publish some accurate figures. Bradford's demise has impacted participation in the area, clubs like Dudley Hill and West Bowling have struggled to attract youngsters.

Completely agree with the last paragraph - both my boys played junior and open age rugby. The behaviour of the parents especially the women was sickening. Their abuse of their own kids, other kids, each other and especially referees was shameful for what is supposed to be a family sport.

Vibrant clubs like Stanningley have senior players closely associated to the club, in their case JJB. East Leeds have Danny McGuire, Kippax have Andy Lynch - it may be a coincidence that participation are higher where links are closer to the elite side. Kids look up to these players as role models what happens when the kids view these players in a different light?

Fair points. I also agree with your earlier point about the lack of finance in SL being a big problem. Our game has been sold too cheaply IMO culminating in the Stobart nonsense. When the NRL upped their cap and the Union product improved it was on the cards that SL would not only lose valuable sources of talent but that these streams would be reversed and our home made stars would be targeted from both Union and NRL.

IMO our game needs star players and there should have been some inducement for our top clubs to attract star signings. Not only would these stars help attract extra sponsorship but benefits would filter down to those clubs would could not afford to sign international stars. I get the feeling that our game is being run to suit the lowest common denominator which always results in leveling down and not up.

This isn't aimed at those unfortunates who've got the entire family to cater for, but is £20-odd quid really as exorbitant as some posters make out? I'd be happy to pay £30 if it resulted in a proportionate rise in the cap. After all, what does £20 buy these days in any walk of life? Such a jump would represent a big % increase and would probably price some out of season tickets. But to my mind, the dependency on season tickets is harming the game. All it results in is a creeping apathy within the game where those running clubs know they're able to sell what are likely to be poor quality games against mediocre opposition. Remove that crutch and it'd give the whole system a kick up the arris. Of course, the counter-argument would be, as always, that the game cannot afford to take this risk (and it is a risk) but at present the game's stagnating and large sections of the public recognise this. I think Sal's prognosis of decreasing crowds is probably correct and intuitively think that the club can better turn this around while the fanbase remains at c 14k than it will be should it drop to, say 10k.

I think your first line actually answers your question. Rugby League, is and for a long time has been, a family game. Therefore many people do go as families. Whether that is husband and wife, father and son, father and daughter, or even three generations at a time.

Looking at that for a family it is a massively exorbitant amount for 80 minutes of rugby. A price that you can actually get tickets for finals for, never mind normal league games. At £30 a ticket you wouldn't even get half the attendances we do now I would wager.

If that's what you mean by ''family game'', then football is too. This isn't the 1980's.

But Football wasn't being discussed.

Agree wholeheartedly about the family thing, which is why I flagged it. And the kids are the future of our game. Now I recognise that my solution will never be implemented, but if it was it shouldn't be beyond the bounds to increase adult prices while dropping those for kids = no net increase to families.

Why would kids look on the players in a different light just because of a loss to Bradford. As it happens, my 3 year old nephew was at the game and sat with us on Friday and he loved it other than the result. He wasn't worried about compeltion rates or attacking structures, what he saw was a close game that swung from looking like we were going to lose, then looked like we were going to sneak a win and then blew it. He got to see his favourite players, Zak Hardaker and Rob Burrow make a couple of nice runs that got him excited. There was a decent crowd and a decent atmosphere and he got to see Ronnie. I think you're over estimating the understanding that a kid has of what goes on at a game. I'd say after Friday (incomprehensible as it may be to us as adults) that he is more likely to want to attend games than less.

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.