oofff..... They were terrible games when they ran them, the players had little enthusiasm... So the fans had no real entertainment.

The least bothered of the two teams always won the game







Nobody wanted to be injured unlike State of origin where winning is important to the players and crowds. If RL was split between London clubs and the M62 clubs maybe......

Historically I think North.v.South worked pre the 1896 split

Hence why they need to build it right.

Well I go right back, so I can easily recall the early 2000's.........

In the seasons 2003, 2004 and 2005 Bradford and Leeds played each other a tiresome 14 times



However the average attendance per game was 29,000

So if it's about bums on seats ...................... And it is................................

Unless that's skewed by CC Final or GF attendances too I very much doubt a 29k average for fixtures played at Headingly / Odsal, where they did get just over 20k for some of their games.

It's not "skewed" even though it does contain the cup finals.

The cup finals count because these repeat fixtures between these top clubs attracted big cup final crowds despite the same fixture being played again.

Cup finals are capable of low crowds as well, they certainly aren't sell outs as we saw with Calalans...........

The point stands that loop fixtures are in theory unattractive but not in practice when you see the third or fourth "derby" crowd

What do you think the average crowds would be if we added London and Toulouse to SL and removed he boring loop fixtures?

How??

That's for them to decide, but I would set out from the start that it's the trials for the England side similar to rep footy in Oz. Don't play in this and you don't get picked for England.

Players always seem to pull out of a mid-season international but are fit to play for their club in the game before and after. In Australia a handful of them back-up at the weekend. Why can't they do that here?

We need to make sure that the best 34 players are on show to start with. The rivalry between the counties should help to market things.

We then need to stick with it for more than 2 seasons.

Well answered..........

They need ditching and im not convinced they are the massive money spinner some think they are. A couple of years ago Hull played Wakefield twice in one month at home, with no disrespect to Wakefield that isn't a fixture to attract new fans or get the more casual fans into the ground. It just felt like season ticket holders and diehard away fans only in the ground.

I'd rather see games against Toulouse/London/Bradford etc to at least see some different players and hear some different songs from the away end.

Bang on.

The bottom line though is that, the current SL clubs dont want to "water down" their share of the sky monies and to the wider public, RL is becoming as much of a "draw" as curling and far from increasing the revenue from the TV deal, it looks like there will be a hefty cut.
Therefore, it's more likely that the bigger clubs will at some point be asking for a reduction in the number of SL clubs.

As you say, the loop fixtures are no great money spinner, other than providing clubs with an additional 2 home games (plus 2 away fixtures).
The revenue from these is certainly needed but, it would be preferable if there were 2 additional clubs in SL and a balanced
fixture list.
Maybe "magic" could be used for the 4th / 5th round of the cup (when the SL clubs join the fray) which may add some interest to the cup. - mind you, they may have to "warm" some of the balls when the draw is made, to ensure a couple of juicy fixtures

It's a great point that maybe most loop fixtures see little money handed over at the Turnstyles, but would less games affect season ticket prices that may have to adjust down?

Maybe the "Middle eights" for the MPG showed there arey always a couple of clubs in the Championship that could give SL clubs a game.

Maybe the number of applicants for 12th. spot showed clubs are ready and willing to make the league back up to 14

As we did have 14 club leagues for 26 regular games back in 2014 and well before that

Is the problem the top owners like to have their "third games" against big rivals like Hull/HKR Saints/Wigan than against London and Featherstone?

Anyway great post and 14 for me all day...........

Well your right because the bigger clubs have already put the idea of a 10 club Superleague (and a 10 club Championship) to the vote about 18 months ago.

Thus we were looking at all clubs playing each other three times, and probably will be again as SL looks for a 10 way split of ALL the SKY money.

I don't know when this will be brought back on the table, but now won't be the time. Once we are well into the 2021 season and season tickets are all sold, top SL chairmen will probably look to run that vote again. Kind of keep asking until you get the right answer??

That should be the time when we can see exactly who would be up to making up a 10 club Superleague. The reports all point to very very serious money problems at some clubs that either wipe out their SL ambitions, or mean they would have to drop out of Superleague.

If you have lost a lot of money due to Covid, and don't have a rich enough owner to balance the books then SL may be beyond your club.

I would suggest that for 2021's potential 10 club Superleague simply list the 10 club owners with the most personal wealth...........

That's likely to be the make up of SL and at least that will mean Newcastle and London in and a truly national game







(there's always a silver lining)

Yeah, Newcastle and London will really save us



I think that you're right about some clubs teetering on the edge financially but, as the famous phrase goes, be careful what you wish for.

For the record, the 10 club SL has been floating around for much longer than you suggest.
However, if anyone suggests that it's SL 1 & SL 2, they should be thrown from the nearest tall building.

A 10 club SL will be a cash grab by the bigger clubs, just as it always was.

The way our sport is declining, it will soon be Wigan, Saints, Leeds Wire and Hull playing with themselves.

Ooh err. Can you say that?

Well the fact is that the game is miles in front of where it was in the sixties and seventies.

Stadiums are better, crowds are bigger, player development is more professional and TV deals still come through.

So Covid apart the old man of the M62 is still alive and well and aged 125.

If you want to see a Rugby League "dying" try the French game

If you want to see a dead Rugby League try the Canadian game.

This is how spectacularly wrong you can be. You have fallen for the idea France and North America are the future, so much so that you think the English game is dying?

Why not learn an instrument? Why not do some of those DIY jobs around the house you have left for such a long time. It's better than spending the last so many years on here shouting about "expansion".

Then when two well backed English clubs well away from the M62 apply for Superleague you slag them off







As soon as you get your jabs, plan to go down to Belle Vue and volunteer your services, it's gonna be a tough season, [uSchoey says so[/u.

Does your jeremiad ever end? This is a thread about loop fixtures and still you mention France and North America.
Crowds are NOT bigger.Try asking your mate,Lenagan.Stadiums are not better.Possiblt the ones shared with other clubs in other sports,but ask Wakefield and Castleford.
Player development is not more professional.If players perform in the NRL,a place where the sport developed within the 125 yrsl timescale,they then represent the place where they were born.The selection pool decreases yearly.
Argue with Sport England if you think participation numbers are swelling.
TV deals still come through? I think you'll find the 2,long serving,broadcast companies still remain.Just as the 'old man of the M62' remains.On It's last legs...

Ever thought of following your own advice? Most threads on here somehow transition into expansion with a definite anti French or Canadian element with you constantly at the forefront droning on.

I may or may not agree with some of your points but we tend to end up in the same place which isn't healthy and doesn't encourage wider debate from different posters, something that you say that you wish to encourage but in reality that seems only to apply to comments that align with yours

Firstly I have started and supported a series of threads that are not about expansion please look at these........ Secondly the North American thing is dead so I was right and that's that and I don't post about that any more

Many people miss (and that must be deliberate) if the game adopts "expansion" without the TV deals and the new players to pay for and play for this "expansion" than all you get is "substitution"

Take Wakefield out of Superleague and put Toulouse in
Take Castleford out of Superleague and re-instate Toronto
Take Huddersfield out and put in Ottawa

That is the real life suggestion made on message boards which many people regularly talk about in far more posts than even I could manage. I would not answer any of their posts with anything but solid agreement if the expansion argument was a good one. But the fact is once you get less than 9 English clubs in Superleague you lose the SKY contract. [uI didn't say that Pearson and McManus did.[/u

My only argument left is if anyone thinks France is a way to grow our game then [uput four French clubs in the Championship and grow that[/u before kicking out English clubs that underpin the SKY contract.

[uIt's unfair to suggest I am anti-French or Anti-Canadian[/u, it's very simple - if you use Superleague as an expansion league you deplete the English game and risk losing that.......I may have argued that 50 times? Others may have argued I'm wrong 50 times - it takes two to make a tedious prolonged argument

I think you are more than a little confused as you state that you don't talk about North America anymore yet here we are on a thread about loop fixtures and you couldn't resist go back a couple of pages and re read what YOU have written re Perez and Gridiron and only coming on this thread with your reply because another had been locked.

This thread is about loop fixtures not substituting Wakefield, Castleford and Huddersfield with Toulouse, Toronto and Ottowa again it's YOU that mentions North America (although you don't apparently) and expansion.

BTW you lost me when you suggested that Cup Final crowds don't skew attendances and used them to advocate loop fixtures total nonsense.

That's a fair cop.

I will not mention North America ever again................................................

The point was that no matter how many times Leeds and Bradford played the crowds were enormous in RL terms

I don't want to see clubs playing each other so much, but at least the way it was done, and the result was more big crowds.

More money isn't "nonsense"........

This begs the question if we played 14 clubs in SL with a 26 round season would gate revenue rise or fall??

Thoughts??

Money isn't nonsense I never said that it was and in addition I don't think anyone thinks that there isn't a financial reward or indeed an appetite to play in a Cup Final and that's where your point loses validity in my opinion it's not really a loop fixture and you understand this despite denying it.

Here's an example using my own club as an example,

Warrington might play Wigan three times as regular fixtures, Home Away and either a loop fixture and or Magic, if they met in another game and that game was a CC Final or GF, would that crowd be larger smaller or about the same as the previous encounters?

If Warrington and Wigan didn't make those one off event games and thought well instead of having a week off we will upgrade the Locker Cup to a do or die fixture would that generate the same revenue as a CC or GF appearance?

As far as loop fixtures are concerned, I look forward to the big games but don't necessarily want more of them against the same opposition, familiarity does breed contempt, surely it's better to have more quality across a wider base.

Dont know about me learning an instrument but, you could certainly do with a new "theme".

As for "slagging off" Newcastle and London, get a bloody grip man.
I like London but, I have been watching long enough to know that their presence in SL just wont save the game.
Despite their brave campaign last time they were in SL, there is very, very little interest from fans down there.
Of course their is a myriad of reasons for this and their constant moving grounds and inability to put down proper roots is probably the main problem but, let's not pretend that they are the next big thing, they're not.
And Newcastle, despite their wealthy owner, have to prove themselves as a genuine Championship club.

It's ironic that you've spent 4 years slagging off overseas clubs and wanting rid of Catalan and Toulouse and yet both have proved to be good value in their respective comps but, dont let that get in the way of your jaundiced view of ALL overseas RL.

Anyway, you've managed to hijack another thread with your hatred of the French.

This one is titled "Loop fixtures".

Do you have a view on these or just want to slag off Catalan (again).

Sure I agree, but I'm only saying that the big clubs provide that quality and get big gates despite repetitive fixtures.

Sure I agree it's better to have more quality clubs with large fanbases in Superleague (hence get Bulls back - hence I quote their crowds)

But extending SL to 14 with two SMALL unattractive clubs thus removing loop fixtures may well see average crowds reduce. I don't believe SL bosses are purists here?

The interesting point is if you recall SL proposed a mover to 10 clubs in Superleague, they thenselves must have thought increasing the loop fixtures was a good thing, because surely they were not going to play an 18 game season??????