It's not that easy, unfortunately. If you only look at Super League and it's attendances you may well come to the conclusion that you have. What about the pro game as a whole? What about media interest and hype around the sport as a whole? This is not only generates real interest amongst the general public, including non fans, but also helps with lucrative sponsorship deals - something which is somewhat lacking at the moment.

There are a number of factors as to why SL attendances could be rising. The increase is largely being driven by the big clubs, such as yours, plus there's also the cheap season ticket offer at the Bulls. Widnes' inclusion will have boosted the figures a little too. Not much admittedly, but we had over 8,000 at the first game and will probably average about 6,000 this year. That will be enough to boost last seasons attendances. Then there's the new stadiums for Saints and Salford that will also contribute to those clubs bringing in more fans.

If we still had P&R we may be seeing an even greater rise in attendances than we do now. As Starbug says, what about the declining interest in what was once the most prestigious trophy in the game?

Its statements like the above that convince me you are a total fookin ar$e of the highest degree.
One day you will have a real job in the real world - God help you.

The argument was that promotion and relegation is “what puts bums on seats and generates interest and excitement, and thus media hype. This is something which is lacking in the game now.” If that were to be true then the lack of it would mean we have less bums on seats now under franchising than under P + R. If we don’t then that statement cant possibly be true. IF we have more bums on seats under franchising, for whatever reason, it undeniably proves that P + R isn’t what puts bums on seats.
The myriad of other reasons you have listed are what ‘puts bums on seats’. Lets not forget that it was franchising which allows Bradford the stability to offer cheaper tickets and bring in more fans. They couldn’t have done so under a P + R system which risked relegation which would totally destroy any longer term benefits Bradford were looking to reap from getting ‘bums on seats’

That’s a fairly circular argument isn’t it?

As for the challenge cup, the decline in interest comes for a lot of reasons, and lets not pretend it is an issue that has only surfaced in the last 4/5 years. The CC lost a lot of relevance when SL went fully pro because semi-pro and amateur sides cannot compete, in the main, with fully pro players.

The increase from 2011 is only just under 10% on the 61,000 over all figures. The increase in St Helens' attendances alone pretty much account for that. They were playing at Widnes and averaged around 7,500 and are now getting 14,000+. Then there are the other reasons for the increase, which would have happened regardless of the type of promotional system the sport uses.

It was you whom referenced these figures as some sort of proof that licencing is as good for increasing the attendances than P&R. I personally would regard the increased figures as a result of particular and unusual circumstances that would've occurred anyway and not due to the virtue of either system, as you have put forward.



Are you serious? I mean you must be ing totally deluded the believe that, given the circumstances?

If anything, the current system, whereby some clubs will always be favoured above others - no matter what - has given the board at the Bulls a licence to chance committing financial suicide, as they know that they'll never be kicked out of SL to be replaced by a Championship club.

I don't know enough to make an informed view of this, but Burnham clearly does and is supporting a number of people in the game who agree with him. (Admittedly, most from Leigh!)

My concern is with the overall business model of the game where there are some systemic problems.

My club St Helens were supremely successful in the early noughties. Yet if you took away the BSkyB money they could probably barely operate. Worse still if the wealthy chairman pulled out his funds.

Our game operates in some of the least affluent areas of the UK. And now also in very straightened times. I believe the franchise system gives clubs an opportunity to get their (financial) act together over 2 or 3 years. However, lower league clubs shouldn't be left to rot.

Actually i didnt reference these figures as proof franchising was working. You said that it was P + R which what [iputs bums on seats and generates interest and excitement, and thus media hype. This is something which is lacking in the game now.” [/i I said that if that were the case, it would be easily provable by comparing 'bums on seats' in a P + R world and a franchising world.

I didnt reference those figures as proof franchising worked, simply as evidence that P + R isnt what puts "bums on seats and generates interest and excitement, and thus media hype. This is something which is lacking in the game now.”

Now if you want to say that the increase is down to new stadiam, special offers, whatever then fine, but that simply goes to support the argument that it isnt P +R which what puts [i"bums on seats and generates interest and excitement, and thus media hype. This is something which is lacking in the game now.” [/i it is new stadia, special offers, or whatever else you want to put it down to. But we know, specifically that in and of itself, that on its own, P +R doesnt increase attendences and a lack of it doesnt reduce attendances.



I dont think those two things are linked, and deep down i suspect neither do you. The special offers run by the bulls havnt been put forward by anybody as a serious reason for the Bulls failings. There are much more obvious, as well as much deeper, more structural reasons for their troubles. It has been almost universally acknowledged that the pledge scheme run by the Bulls was a good scheme, that increased attendances dramatically and created a feel-good positive atmosphere at Odsal. It would be wrong to suggest that because in other areas there has been clear mismanagement that means that that offer, in isolation, is a bad idea.

Frankly, i would think it delusional for anyone to believe that what the Bulls achieved with 'the pledge' could have been done under a P+R system.

So your answer is?

I seem to remember being told it was 40/50 K, most of which is swallowed up with players win bonus, financially its better to lose the GF

Still we'll ( well Fev,Fax,Eagles and Leigh ) be fine this year, we get to play a French team, maybe the RFL could have used the 60 odd grand that will cost a bit better, especially as Fev wont actually be playing the French Champions now

Yeah, the probably could have just given it to the french sides.

It seems none of your 'solutions' for the lower leagues involve anything other than doing exactly the same as what the lower league clubs have been doing for the past 100 years, just with SL giving them some money.

If anything is a waste of money it isnt trying something new which fails, it would be spending more on doing things which have already failed.

What is your solution?