I`m sorry but that`s just untrue - the period 1963 -1974 was when most damage was done to the sport which co-incidentally happened to be the time of the reign of Bill Fallowfield - the nadir most likely been reached in 1973 when a Test series involving GB ( as World Champions ) playing Australia attracting only 10,000 to the opener at Wembley and a simlar figure to the series decider at Warrington - just prior to that a Test match against NZ got a crowd of 3,500.
On the amateur side the game was little less but dead during the late Sixties early seventies and it was only the work of visionarys like Maurice Oldroyd helping set up BARLA which rescued it .
In relation to the RU parallels they are also questionable -sure some RU clubs have thrived but many have more or less gone to the wall ( London Scottish , Richmond , Bedford etc ) and even at GP level several clubs are either reliant on other clubs facilities such as Saracens or Wasps or living hand to mouth as in Leeds and to a certain extent Newcastle and Sale . RL meanwhile is benefiting from a tight salary cap allowing us to invest in new faciltys such as those at Warrington or planned at St Helens ...
I`m sorry but this game is dying scenario is just wearisome and rather typical of any debate involving RL ...

You misunderstood my post. I am pointing out that it is only in the last few years that RL has woken out of its torpor and is finally starting to look at the big picture ie franchising, Salary cap, infrastructure, youth development, imports etc

I wonder just what would have happened to our domestic game and the "heartland" clubs especially if, in 1941, the government of the day declared the game illegal and sized all its assets?

So you are questioning what would have happened to RL if we had lost the 2 nd world war ?

I doubt we would have cared

Sorry to butt into this but can I just say that Hull has two clubs in its City so any figures mentioned about poplulation has to be halved in this discussion. (well in fact most of the population lives in the east side of the city so even half isn't a true reflection but that would be padantic! lol)

All statistics [ like the W1g4n one of 81,000 ] can be manipulated to suit virtually any argument , and as such are not relevant to arguments like this , your one of having 2 clubs can in reality work the other way and actually increase levels of support

I can't even find any reference to France losing WW2.

Your point is?

You in training to be tb's apprentice are you

pathetic

Just to be even more pedantic, that figure for Leeds is the Leeds Urban Area and not the City of Leeds and doesnt include the suburbs which are part of the City of Leeds. It is simply the figure for Urban Leeds and includes none of the suburbs which are part of the city in every way. The true figure for Leeds is about 780k,

The corporate box will be for 600 people.

Amazing how some people think doom and gloom all the time. When I started watching Leeds in 1981 we averaged about 5 1/2 thousand. The only club to bring in serious crowds in the early 80s was Hull. The turning point for the game as a whole was the 82 Kangaroos and the end of the international transfer ban (and getting rid of the 6th tackle scrum). Comparatively speaking the game is currently in far better shape than 1982.

For those who have a dig at Quins as well, I remember the old Fulham being one of the first games I saw. To me league in London has been around a long time. The club may have morphed and moved a few times but there is a 30-year history there.