If you compare attendances at Cas, compared with the population of the town then I think this is totally justified.
For instance, Leeds may acheive attendances of 15,000, from a population of 450,000 ish Cas average is around 8000 from 40,000 ish.
Of course this doesn't take account of away support or, people that live elsewhere, but choose to support the team but, 1 in 5 at Cas,
compared to 1 in 30 at Leeds, so as a percentage of the popiulation it is fair to say that RL is more important to the people of Cas.

Fine,

Here are the facts,

We have more people watching the game as a whole, over the last 5-10 years we have seen huge increases in crowds at nearly every club.

We have gone from an RFL which was about to go pop to one with cash surpluses every year AND record amounts distributed to member clubs

We have seen new facilities finally open at S Helens and Salford, improvements at Headingley and Craven Park.

We are seeing more people watch on TV (aswell as in the stands) Which will make us more attractive come renegotiation time, and even more so now there is real competition from BT.

That statistic is absolute nonsense to be honest with you. There are 700’000 people in Leeds, for one in five to attend Leeds would need an average of attendances of 175000 which would be by far the best attended sports team in the entire world ever.

Here's a few facts for you.

The accounts at Companies House to Nov 2010 show a worrying downward trend; the land value (assuming the £2.4m in tangible assets is made up primarily from the land they own) appears propping up an ever diminishing balance sheet and increasing [inegative[/i working capital of over £2m.

That means (for those unfamiliar) the Club has accumilated a trading loss of over £2m over the years which is being propped up by their assets. However, the value of the losses is growing much faster than the value of the assets.

Assets are fine on a balance sheet but cash is king - you can't pay wages or the Revenue with lumps of clay.

In 2007 the balance sheet was worth just over £1m. In 2010 it's worth just over £350k. 2011 accounts arn't showing yet but I'm sure you can work out which way its going.

Do you want the miserable financial status' from half a dozen other SL clubs too?

Quote Alexs Dad="Alexs Dad"Here's a few facts for you. The accounts at Companies House to Nov 2010 show a worrying downward trend; the land value (assuming the £2.4m in tangible assets is made up primarily from the land they own) appears propping up an ever diminishing balance sheet and increasing [inegative[/i working capital of over £2m. That means (for those unfamiliar) the Club has accumilated a trading loss of over £2m over the years which is being propped up by their assets. However, the value of the losses is growing much faster than the value of the assets. Assets are fine on a balance sheet but cash is king - you can't pay wages or the Revenue with lumps of clay. In 2007 the balance sheet was worth just over £1m. In 2010 it's worth just over £350k. 2011 accounts arn't showing yet but I'm sure you can work out which way its going. Do you want the miserable financial status' from half a dozen other SL clubs too?'" Yeah fine, give us it. Meanwhile, here are some facts, just for comparison with Premier League, with their promotion and relegation and all. There have been 39 administrations since 2001 in the football league. There are 92 clubs in the football league. The biggest club in the premier league is currently saddled with huge debts that have required a disappointing flotation as they struggle with repayments. The current European champions lost £67m in the financial year up to the end of June, this is in addition to the £340m that was lost up to 2009, which included a loss of £141m in a single year Man City last year posted losses of £194m An interesting article www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-c ... per-league

Quote Alexs Dad="Alexs Dad"Here's a few facts for you. The accounts at Companies House to Nov 2010 show a worrying downward trend; the land value (assuming the £2.4m in tangible assets is made up primarily from the land they own) appears propping up an ever diminishing balance sheet and increasing [inegative[/i working capital of over £2m. That means (for those unfamiliar) the Club has accumilated a trading loss of over £2m over the years which is being propped up by their assets. However, the value of the losses is growing much faster than the value of the assets. Assets are fine on a balance sheet but cash is king - you can't pay wages or the Revenue with lumps of clay. In 2007 the balance sheet was worth just over £1m. In 2010 it's worth just over £350k. 2011 accounts arn't showing yet but I'm sure you can work out which way its going. Do you want the miserable financial status' from half a dozen other SL clubs too?'" Yeah fine, give us it. Meanwhile, here are some facts, just for comparison with Premier League, with their promotion and relegation and all. There have been 39 administrations since 2001 in the football league. There are 92 clubs in the football league. The biggest club in the premier league is currently saddled with huge debts that have required a disappointing flotation as they struggle with repayments. The current European champions lost £67m in the financial year up to the end of June, this is in addition to the £340m that was lost up to 2009, which included a loss of £141m in a single year Man City last year posted losses of £194m An interesting article www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-c ... per-league

Have you noticed what's been happening with the world economy lately? Do you expect SLE to be able to fix that?

Quote SmokeyTA="SmokeyTA"Yeah fine, give us it. Meanwhile, here are some facts, just for comparison with Premier League, with their promotion and relegation and all. There have been 39 administrations since 2001 in the football league. There are 92 clubs in the football league. The biggest club in the premier league is currently saddled with huge debts that have required a disappointing flotation as they struggle with repayments. The current European champions lost £67m in the financial year up to the end of June, this is in addition to the £340m that was lost up to 2009, which included a loss of £141m in a single year Man City last year posted losses of £194m An interesting article www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-c ... per-league'" And the ' relevance ' to Castleford or RL in this post is ?

Quote SmokeyTA="SmokeyTA"Yeah fine, give us it. Meanwhile, here are some facts, just for comparison with Premier League, with their promotion and relegation and all. There have been 39 administrations since 2001 in the football league. There are 92 clubs in the football league. The biggest club in the premier league is currently saddled with huge debts that have required a disappointing flotation as they struggle with repayments. The current European champions lost £67m in the financial year up to the end of June, this is in addition to the £340m that was lost up to 2009, which included a loss of £141m in a single year Man City last year posted losses of £194m An interesting article www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-c ... per-league'" And the ' relevance ' to Castleford or RL in this post is ?

His post was quite simply supplying ' facts ' about Castelfords possible problems , yes we are in a reccession , I didnt realise that was a secret

I've not mentioned anything about SLE, franchising, Premier League debts, or anything else.

I was just letting Smokey know he was chatting waffle again with his claim that Cas are not 'struggling quite as much as the poorly reported article first makes out'.

They are, quite clearly, and I've given his some solid facts that he so clearly demands before any argument against his own is even deemed fit for consideration, so have the 'SLE is good/bad' argument with someone else because its one that bored me long ago.

So, what is the argument then? Simply that Cas might or might not have a few problems? Can't see anyone suggesting that they might not, so we might all be in agreement that they have some problems. That being the case, what are we discussing?

its pretty obvious if you read it

There is no argument from me, for some strange reason you brought up something with zero relevance to my response to Smokey.