Problem is the football and union international attendances are limited by the size of the stadia.

There is a problem with your reasoning, in particular with RU, that they have many people who support the national sides (international game) but don't follow any club side.

e.g. Club RU in Wales is slowly dying, but they can easily get >50K at the Millenium Stadium for the 6 Nations and Autumn Internationals.

There is a larger issue with the reasoning, that being that the size of our footprint isn't an excuse or mitigation, it is part of the problem .

We shouldn't be wanting to celebrate a mediocre attendance because we have a small footprint, we should be expanding that footprint and getting good attendances. We don't need the equivocation that our attendances are 'good for RL' we are a big boy with big boy pants on.

I think people have missed the underlying point of what I was saying, basically this: Why do people get so hung up on attendances? Why should it matter how many people go down there each week, how many people turn out to see the national team? Why is it better if there is more people there? If you enjoy rugby league then it doesn't matter which team you go watch. I sometimes go down the local semi-pro team and there is maybe 100 people there on a good day. Really enjoyable rugby and I have a good time, my experience would not necessarily be bettered if there was 79,900 more people stood around me.

Attendances do not matter, we all go down rugby league cos we love it and that is all, the amount of other people there. Does. Not. Matter.

I imagine the argument that will be put forward here is that bigger attendances and occasions get more media attention and promotes the sport, gives it a better image which is brilliant, don't get me wrong I want that but we, the die-hard fans know it is the best sport in the world, if other people don't that's their problem, essentially the reason more exposure is better is to get people to come watch which is great if it happens but what I'm getting at is it doesn't matter if it doesn't. Take the example of British basketball league, they get a few hundred people and less that no exposure but I'm sure their fans aren't angling for NBA style league, they enjoy their sport, they go to their sport and don't complain.

why is it better that more people are watching rugby league? The amount of people there does matter, it matters quite a lot, it is the basis for everything that comes after.

Its not just that bigger attendances get more media attention (which is a good thing) or that it promotes the sport and gives a better image (which again is a good thing, its that it also means more tv money, more sponsorship money, more attendance money, it introduces more kids to the game which means more players, which means better players, and that tv money and sponsorship money and attendance money means better players, investment in youth development and facilities, it means fewer clubs going pop, fewer players left struggling for money, fewer players leaving the game, more coming in, better stadiums, better sports science.

Otherwise we will be like the BBL, poorly paid players playing a low standard in poor facilities in front of poor crowds,

Of whom only Harlequins have done a decent job of building a regular fan base.

For the record, of the 7 RU clubs in London that went professional in 1995:
2 went bust (Richmond and London Scottish),
3 have left London, (London Irish 40 miles away, London Welsh 50 miles away, Wasps 70 miles away),
1 spent 15 years outside London (Saracens),
1, and only 1, stayed in London the whole time (Harlequins).

Don't be fooled by the attendances at Twickenham, London is not a Rugby Union city.