Am I included in that?

"The reason the teams below super league are part time and have small crowds is because of the fact there is no dream, nothing to aspire to, yes you can win the respective league that you are in but what happens then?"

Is the lack of aspiration the reason in cloud cucko land that Championship sides aren't full time and play in front of a few hundred spectators? It certainly isn't the reason in the real world. Find me a year when the equivalent of the Championship (e.g. the old Second Division) under P&R ever had 'big' crowds apart from the odd team. That is another myth, albeit a new one to me. I'm sure I used to watch Bramley play local derbies in front of 500 people and some games with less than that. Maybe the other 9,000 were in the bar?

Arguing with anti-liscening types is like arguing with creationists.

Evidence and logic isn't their strong point.

* Correction - for "lower league" substitute "totally seperate league".

So why weren't the crowds huge in the P&R days? The crowds aren't that much different. You need to find some other excuses...

The lack of seasonal P and R affects about half a dozen clubs in the Championship , it isn't the only reason for their failings , but it does contribute to them

So the answer is they either become feeder clubs as Hunslet have done , or continue to struggle along slowly losing their core fan base , an exciting choice wouldn't you say ?

We have a choice , we continue in half hearted attempts at expansion [ the RFL s latest was to announce 4 new clubs , before they had any sorted , so we currently are down to 8 clubs in next years Championship 1 ] or support the current lower tiers properly and all the clubs in them

Or we end up with a shrinking sport

No ' excuses ' , just reasons , lots of them , not just no P and R

Then once you identify the reasons , find a solution , that will only happen if you admit there is a problem in the 1 st place , if you keep saying everything is ' rosy ' enough you start to believe it , and then it is too late to stop the decline

Poor club management at all levels , even poorer management at the top level

P&R is a cop out until there's actual evidence of it being a reason. The attendances at most clubs have barely changed.

Nobody is saying that everything is rosey. There's always room for improvement. The problem with way too many fans in our sport is that they expect perfection instantly and they will ALWAYS be disappointed. If they are disappointed, then it's a farce/disgrace/outrageous/etc.

So, there has been no relegation and promotion in Rugby League since 1895 ...?



That's so, so damaging for Association Football too.

And to recall ancient times yet again, I'm no Murdoch fan, but it's a damned sight better than what happened, in terms of TV coverage, before the Sky deal.



They didn't and haven't.

HTH.



Yes. Because since the beginning of time, RL has never ever had promotion and relegation.

Well 10 years ago the top NFP clubs were getting attendances sometimes of 4/5 even 6,000 for big games , now 2,700 is considered a large attendance , in fact it is the reason I no longer attend , and I personally know of quite a few others , it just isn't the same

So lets see something being done to ' improve '

Live TV coverage is pointless for the Championships , the clubs recieve no money for it at all , it should not happen

Does anyone have factual knowledge of where the TV rights money from Premier Sports goes? Surely some funds of some sorts must be pumped into the Championship one way or another by the RFL?

That was not the point the poster I responded to made – they made a very generalised point – and not my response.

There was no coverage of the lower-division clubs in the pre-Sky days either – and there was next to no top-clight league coverage either. We'd get some Challenge Cup and the Regal Trophy (or the Floodlit one, back in the really olden days).

The point is that there is no halcyon time in the past when coverage was generally good. What is available today, therefore, is better than what went before, in terms of the sport in general.

No, it's not perfect (whatever that would be), but it is better.

If TV coverage is worth so much in developing a sport, then is it better to have Championship games televised, even if with no direct revenue, or not at all?

Crowds go down -> I stop attending.

Anybody spotted the flaw in that reasoning?