If we turn the clocks back to the 2 or 3 seasons prior to the Superleague era, is the game (at all levels) or...are individual clubs really in a better or worse position now compared to back then?

Are SKY and SL really the savior of our game? Having seen the debts which some clubs now seem to get themselves into in order to exist in SL, it really does beg the question.

Whilst I'm not going to paint a picture of the early 90's being all sweetness and light I don't recall clubs going into administration to the tune of hundreds of thousands on a seemingly regular basis.

So what are other peoples thoughts on this?

LEeds came very close to going bust as did Hull I think prior to SL. I don't think its the current system thats t blame for some of these clubs being run so badly.

Leeds and Hull of course are two of the biggest names in the game, but as big city teams they have amongst the highest potential for a support base and ultimately as a successful business.

However, it's the smaller and middle order teams that seem to be pushed the hardest to stretch beyond their means and reasonable finances that seem to suffer.

We (Huddersfield) are better off.

HTH

In competitive terms the game is quite clearly better off now, given that the previous era rarely saw more than one club win anything, purely on the basis of having enough money to fund a fully-professional team.

But as previous posters here have pointed out, clubs getting into a financial mess and going - or nearly going - bust is not something that has only been seen in the Super League era or the franchising era. So it's a tad difficult to see how those who attempt to link the two really believe their own selective ness of the evidence.

Warrington were at deaths door

Wigan are now playing in a state of the art stadium averaging 16,000 fans, we also have one of the best training facilities, one of the best youth setups, the best marketing team, the club is becoming profitable.

That is not fluke, it is the result of hard work, the club being run in the right way. That doesn't come from just being 'Wigan'.

This is all despite going backwards on the field for many years.

Our CLUB is much better but the TEAM isn't. I can only dream of what crowds we would have been getting in the early 90's in a stadium like this with great marketing etc.

Some clubs are better off... Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Hull FC, Huddersfield, Warrington..... some are not. Some are just average and will plod along, the RFL will continue to reward mediocrity. No surprise though to see the clubs which have improved and have new facilities are the ones with money behind them. Clearly the sky money alone does not make a club sustainable at this level like we hoped it would. If that was the case then we could have 14 teams all spending to the cap, an even competition and no worries.

You really dont seem to understand the way it was , yes W1g4n did buy the title and cup for several years , but they didnt have the money to susstain it , they were on the verge of going bust , yes the only club at that time that could financially compete with them was Leeds , and it shows how bad they were that it took them so long between titles

Has SL and SKY money made the game better ? , very hard to tell , the world and the way people find their entertainment has changed so much in the last 15/20 years it cannot be a conclusive answer , we have had no choice , just as other sports have had to change

Could we have done a better job of it ? yes , could we have done a worse job of it ? , yes as well

Will things improve in the next 15 years ? , no , we'll still have a few clubs dominating , a few more bouncing along making up the numbers , and then a dozen or so others surviving just

And we still wont have won a major International trophy

Bradford went bust in the pre-summer Golden era as well. I think the problem then was general lack of support rather than a tax bill and some unfortunate, albeit arguably avoidable, events.

Yes and some clubs especially - that said without the greed displayed over the duration of SL it could have been far far better for all the game and not just the few.

There are a few different topics that need to be separated here I suppose. Firstly that of the success of summer rugby, as opposed to winter rugby....and secondly that of the franchised SL compared to traditional league structures.

I personally think that Summer rugby has been the backbone of the success stories that have rejuvenated some teams. However, the pressures of a 'Superleague' and the requirements of a franchise system have been at the heart of the negative aspects of the current era.

Has summer rugby been a success? I really don't know.

I'd love to know how much money was in the game in the early 1990's compared to what there is in the game now. Does anyone have any stats on this to compare the t/o of rugby league clubs pre SL and post SL?

What about at International level? Once upon a time Great Britain could play Australia at Wembley and sell it out. No chance of that these days.

If we believe Eddy & Stevo the game is fitter, faster and more powerful than pre SL. Is it really?

I dunno. I'm kind of sick of debating it to be honest because at the end of the day most peoples views are centred around their own club.

The game is fitter, faster and more powerful than it was in 2006. 1996 is another era entirely.

Poor choice of words from me there. Agreed that it is definately fitter, faster and more powerful.

Has it improved skills? And by that I mean the skill of drawing defence, passing, moving etc. I don't think it has. I think the game has lost some of the shine since players became more athletic.

Overall it'd be difficult to tell - but Martin Offiah on twitter last season was absolutely adamant that players back then were earning a lot more money than they do now. He knows, because he's seen the contracts (I guess by virtue of having been a player himself, and now being a player agent negotiating the contracts).

Whether that was true at all clubs, or even between all players at the top clubs who were paying out more than they could sustain in player wages, it would be difficult to say without the disclose of facts & figures from the players involved - and let's face it, why should they be inclined to do so, and what right would we have to ask it of them?