Are clubs outside SL really drawing smaller crowds than previous decades? I can remember plenty of sub 1000 crowds in the late 80's/early 90's when my club was outside the first division.

Anyone know how the 'grass roots participation' numbers work? Reason I ask is that on that basis I'm actually suprised (but happy) that we get close to same amount as Union. Their grass-roots participation is much higher - virtually every town in the UK (including the RL towns) has a Union club with 3, 4 or more sides turning out, plus veterans, etc.

It's surely time for Nigel Wood to move on. Let's not even focus on his performance - just that he's been there a long time, and unless a person is doing a genuinely spectacular job ( and I don't think many would claim he is) there usually comes a time for fresh thinking. Let him hang around to deliver the World Cup ( I wish it wasn't in his hands, but its too late now ) and then wish him well.

Interestingly, the RFU's figures show a similar performance to the RFL. Starting from a high 4 years ago, dipping, but generally flat over the last 2 years.
The reason for the reduction in funding is not that participation has decreased from last year, but that Sport England targets are significantly higher this year than last year. So whereas in Oct 2011 the RFL were above target, in Oct 2012 the RFL are below target, despite little change in the actual figures.

It's also worthy of note that the figures do not include under 16's and the participation definitions would not include several people who I know, who I would describe as either rugby league players or coaches. Yet, according to the woman from Sport England who was on 5Live today, if you go for a run once a week you would be counted under the Athletics figures.

I did hear that RL was a victim of a different accounting system for players. Previously the RFL provided player numbers counting registered and schools players and this showed a year on year increase which is realistic.

This time however the funding was based on scaling up from a representative national survey of the population...this will underestimate sports with high local hot spots.

rfl made big emphasis on post 16 players and put all eggs into touch rugby, meanwhile hardly any development work done in junior scholls therefore less young players playing which means less teams and therefore less participation

I wouldn't agree with that at all. There has been a big push by the RFL on schools in recent years. With the number of school kids playing increasing from just over 5,000 in 2002 to 27,500 in 2012.
There's still plenty of work to be done and lots of potential in schools, but it's wrong to say the RFL have ignored schools.

We need to become fashionable,cool ,hip or whatever.
Promote Sinfield ,Tomkins etc more.
The establishment do not need much encouragement to to put us down
Clare Baldwin for Chiel Exec. of the RL.

i work in schools mate and the rfl have not been into many, champion schools participation has increased but look at the amount of walk overs, development officers are very rarely in primary schools as they were told there remit was to increase post 16 participation, this is not opinion but fact, the rfl have not been to a single primary or high school in the kirklees area

They set up an U18 league in the midlands because of the drive but it's a disaster only 1 in 3 of scheduled games went ahead last year (half went ahead if you take out NEW Ravens who withdrew). Pretty much players doubled up in the U18 game and then A team game afterwards leading to more A team games being cancelled. Only 3 teams are confirmed at this level next year with 3 mayes. All 3 of the definites called off multiple games at either U18 or A team level last year. The Under 16s league on the other hand is very successful and Cumbria and the North East have successful development missing the U18 step out.

What school are you at? I work for a Sports Partnership in Kirklees and know that the Giants do still go into schools, they have run a free curriculum programme for the last 2 years though are now charging a nominal fee due to the funding cuts. Batley and Dewsbury also go into schools though their resources are less. Not true to say that the 'RFL' havent been into a single school in Kirklees.

Who she?

To add to what Seth has said, how does the increase of 22,000 players happen if the RFL haven't been pushing development in schools?
I'd agree more can and should be done in schools but to say nothing has been done is flatly untrue as the stats and facts show.

Prior to the last 3 years I worked as a community Rugby League coach in Leeds and delivered a programme to 57 schools, primary and secondary. I know their remits changed since I left though this was as instructed by Sport England and there has still been flexibility to deliver in schools, in fact almost 80 schools in Kirklees were offered free curriculum sessions in the academic year 2011-12 (Ive just had a quick look at their development plan that they sent me for that year). This doesnt include the Batley and Dewsbury schools figures either.

There was "clarification" for RU's cut from Sport England. It was expected, and not to be seen as a punishment - as it is basically a drop in capital funding for infrastructure projects which are now completed.

Why can RL not have one-off capital funding for infrastructure? Do we have all the infrastructure we need?