If all 3 Huddersfield fans turned up they would still make a loss. A big empty stadium would look shocking on TV and it's not an image the game wants to project

www.therhinos.co.uk/news/27583.php Saints confirmed.

www.therhinos.co.uk/news/27583.php Saints confirmed.

:1fpjqbym

They certainly are

I hope we fare better than earlier this year.

The RFL are seeing the club with the right credentials. Its a 40 year anniversary match up between the two teams as well. superleague.co.uk/article/33177/ ... WzsR1lf.99

The RFL are seeing the club with the right credentials. Its a 40 year anniversary match up between the two teams as well. superleague.co.uk/article/33177/ ... WzsR1lf.99

Who is to say it would be poorly supported, plenty of neutrals would come to see the NRL minor premiers.
And another point some teams have to have big stadiums so the RFL can host big games. Even Saints average support would look lost at our place.
And another thing if the Roosters thrash Saints which is very likely, that`s not an image to project.

The neutrals argument is completely null, because it's as applicable at LP as it is Huddersfield. To think 10k+ neutrals will turn to make it look full is ambitious to the point of obtuse.

Regardless of the result (and given Huddersfield record at playoff level, I'd of thought you'd of been cautious of bringing up "well if your stuffed..."), it will be a celebration of the 40th anniversary of the same fixture as the very first wcc.

I,m not sure if the Giants would market the game to get 1000's of neutrals it would,t be a cost effective measure due to the £160 000 money guarantee requirement.

The giants ground was built for football ambitions not rugby league ones, it doesn't look good having 6000 to 8000 fans in a 25000 stadium every other week, it wasn't the RFL requirement for such a big stadium so they themselves can use it for one or two games a year. It would be great if the giants fans could average around 15000 fans a week which means opening up all the stands and just close the top sections/tiers.

We would expect a better performance against the Roosters yet still lose the game, last years game against the Rabbitohs was a wake up call for super league, but when you look at the Rabbitohs they had beaten 2 of the top NRL sides either side of our game with scores of 30+. The most important will obviously be Leeds v Cowboys but the concept is a good one so it needs a few more years to become more competitive, its a pity a few teams don,t buy into it for financial reasons instead of ambitions.

We can dress it up all we like with talk of anniversaries and public image, but for me this kind of decision undermines the competition, and, to an extent, the SL as well. There should be very clear criteria for qualification in place before the start of the SL season. The sensible thing, as far as I'm concerned, is for the highest remaining finisher to take the third spot, since that's the fairest way of deciding. If everyone knows that from the start, then there's an extra dimension to those late super-8 games; beating Warrington at home at the end of the 8s would have been essential in order for us to secure a place in the world club series. If the RFL wants every minute to matter then why not have that as an extra, tangible thing to play for?

Huddersfield would no doubt have drawn a smaller crowd than us, but these are precisely the kind of games they need to both raise their profile and get more experience of high-intensity games. I look forward to seeing Saints take on the Roosters, but it should have gone automatically to Huddersfield as far as I'm concerned.

Not sure what the fuss is. You are the best performing team after Wigan and Leeds- 2 semi finals, both very competitive. Huddersfield one semi final and choked.

I'm with some of you, I'd rather us not be in it. A nothing game that will probably prove to be a bigger distraction than it's worth.

so basically, it'd look like quite a lot of games in them big empty stadiums, in Sydney?