I must admit that this, coming from a Wakefield fan, as made me chuckle....

The scores might be close, but the product on the field is mediocre, because it's being held back by a lack of investment in youth development systems by some clubs and also a restrictive salary cap, which, bizarrely, many Yorkshire clubs were only recently proposing to cut even further.

Not sure here. If we want to expand "youth development" we need more kids playing the game, however numbers have gone down big style, and that is the case for Soccer as well?

If we increase the cap that would simply put the best players in the top six clubs and the bottom six would be easybeats??

you don't half talk some mining was a good honest living at the time which kept families warm giving them electric to serve the nation at cost of lives,
you care not to mention of the Bradford mill past dealings with the slave trade do you, Bradford is a dump the only good thing is the moors and don't come back telling I no nothing of Bradford as my family came from Bradford so for all yer ilkley ba tat I've seen enough of your flat caps and xenophobia to last me a life time

Fast forward 60 years and the bulls will be in the same boat having not won anything

Well in 1996 we got q few quid from the BBC for a semi-pro comp, and our top division played to an average of around 6.000.

Now we get £200,000,000 from SKY and average 8,500.

Vastly improved in modern times.

You should have been around 1970 the game was dying then until BARLA came along. perhaps you just haven't done enough research here?

So we allow the mediocre to hold back the aspiring clubs, who actually want to invest in names that will bring in spectators, such as Wire signing Inglis, which are the type of signings which then get young kids interested in the game again?

So in 50 years wherein a revolution has taken place in sports marketing and TV exposure this is the evidence the game isn't struggling to find significant investment in ownership and sponsorship, and the next TV deal is reported to be a reduction?

That's reassuring.

I take your point, and the Marquee signing allowance took your point into a reality, with Inglis, SBW and Folau now in Superleague.

Not sure I take your point as far as these top players getting a significant number of EXTRA kids interested across the board? If half of Superleague are easybeats then I can see kids not being bothered with the game in places like Wakey, Cas, Fartown etc......

Difficult one. Maybe we have the balance right as it stands?? ,

Possibly. But if clubs like those you name bring little to the game, then it's surely upto them to up their game or move aside and allow others to get a shot?

Personally, as a child growing up in the 70's and 80's, I was always more attracted to games involving the big 'star' names, such as Hull's kiwi contingent or when Brett Kenny or Mal Meninga came to town - I certainly remember when Wire signed Boyd/Tamati/Blake in the mid 80's, there was a huge buzz within the kids at school and can recall plenty of kids making their first visit to watch Wire at that time... Surely, the same scenario fits now, and in any era?

Yes Toronto and Catalans they don’t have development one has TV money one wants it so at least 2/12 in Superleague rely on on other clubs to do it for them ... and then offer more money to lure them and get in the sh*t...

Go on then, prove it.

Since SL was "created" by Uncle Mo, the following clubs have had new grounds:

Wigan
Saints
Wire
Hull FC
Catalan (not in the comp at the start)
Salford
Huddersfield (excellent ground, if a little too big for the RL club) - technically it was open pre SL
Hull KR (improved)
Leeds (improved
Cas (same old)
Trinity (same old plus Benidorm Flats & a couple of covered areas)

Can you tell me how many of these clubs have improved their attendances since the move to their new facilities and what effect these facilities have had on the TV deal -as a clue, the answer to the second part of the question is beggar all.

Dont get me wrong, I go to probably 10/11 away games every season (well used to when crowds were permitted) and I would much prefer going to modern stadia, I'm not arguing that point.
Where I take issue is the absolute bilge that gets thrown out, by people like yourself but, more so the Bulls fan, that suggested the lack of new facilities at Wakefield is "holding the game back", it's bloody nonsense.
The only thing that the ageing facilities are holding back at Wakefield is Wakefield Trinity (ditto Cas)

Increases in attendances tend to come with on field success not because of some plastic seating.
FWIW, I would always stand rather than sit (in a tight plastic seat) if there was an option - Wire is great for this reason - not having to constantly stand up and let people to/from the bar and to/from the toilets.

I'm not defending Trinity's ground, it desperately needs work and a lot of it.