So Wakey back in SL, then.
I bear them no animosity as a club, but I REALLY hope we put 80 past them on both games, because of that Yorkshire winker, who nearly got us relegated, and decimated our playing roster, as some of them were "bad apples". Irony lost on him, then.

You should think yourself lucky that Warrington were one of the lucky ones to find someone to buy their ‘ ground’. True Cas are still looking to get there with a new stadium, but it’s not for the want of trying. The positive is that, whatever you think of Wheldon Road, it belongs to the club. Not many that can say that. Also, others are fortunate to have a sugar daddy owner to bank roll them and we don’t have that either, though Martin Jepson’s involvement has made things a bit healthier.

At the end of the day, the truth is Warrington is just a Cas but with more cash. Never forget your roots.

I take onboard your points. But I go back to original licensing and all clubs were told improvements had to be made or lose your license. How ever it happened our club got it done irrelevant of who paid for the stadium etc we done what was asked. For years the likes of Wakefield and Castleford kept getting away with it. All I can say on that is fair play that they did because end of the day the RFL did not follow through on the processes. Wakefield finally got it going and yet to see what Cas do. Like I said I’d rather be at Wilderspool for me atmosphere at HJ as never come close etc but I know end of day we could not stay there.

It can't all be down to the stadium. Widnes had a new stadium in the early days of SL & were still shown the door.

That stadium is so dark I needed to use a torch to see the teams on the pitch.

Isn't this the whole point though.

Rugby League is stagnating.
- Sky deal reducing
- Clubs in financial trouble
- Less juniors playing the game
- Etc, Etc

If we continue with the same model, then nothing will change, and whilst I disagree with some of the criteria and the weightings, the idea is to not apply focus on the on field performance of clubs as that doesn't help with growth. The criteria is focusing on viewers, stadium facilities, website clicks etc. It is clearly marketing heavy, but you can see the direction is towards trying to grow the sport. Although one absolutely stinking omission is the mentioning of academies.

The main selling point of our game (on the pitch anyway) was the open attacking rugby. I know that defences win games, but I also believe there is a lot we can do to improve the attacking side of the sport, to make it a more attractive prospect to new fans. There's nothing better than watching some end-to-end free-flowing rugby that has people on their feet (in the seated areas). There aren't many x-factor players these days, and the ones who are nearly x-factor rarely get the space to demonstrate their skills or pace.

Yes why I loved RL was

1. Gladiatorial contest, passion, honesty. (think Boyd/Tamati/Sorenson/Ward et al)
2. Fast paced, skilful rugby. (think JD, Blake, Woods, Offiah, Gleeson, Newlove, Hanley, Gregory et al)
3. Hero players that you could relate to and close to the fans. (Mike Greg, Cul, John Bevan et al)

What I don't like currently is

1. Formulaic, predictable, dull RL.
2. Identikit players, loss of specialism.
3. Feigning injury (never thought I would see the like)
4. The absolute mess that follows one tackle before the play the ball. I'm not even calling it a ruck.
5. The joke that is the RL scrum. It's an embarrassment.

Maybe it wasn't better in the past and I'm just old now, but I enjoyed it more in the past for sure. I think it probably peaked with the Saints / Bradford / Leeds sides in the early part of this century.

You can have the best product / sport in the world, but if nobody knows about it then what is the point?

The quality of the sport is not the reason for stagnation / a lack of growth.

With respect I am going to challenge the no-one knows about RL argument. RL has featured on British TV and Radio broadcasts since 1948. The 2024 CCF drew an audience share of 12.6%. (877,000 viewers)*. Most newspapers carried articles on the grand final build up and game.

I think, in reality, it just has limited appeal with the limited number of people who like "rugby" preferring Union which has an enviable international game, national league, and domestic following.

I have always equated RL with the Irish Hurling Pro league. Fiercely contested between the counties that play it, finals draw ~60,000 spectators, average home gates ~10,000 some 20,000+, TV coverage by Sky, major league sponsor in Allianz. They believe it's the best game on earth too. Yeah we are aware of it but are we going to watch it...?


*https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/how-the-challenge-cup-viewing-figures-compare-to-2023-and-the-rugby-union-final-92997/

I would think a new viewer of the game with a sky package would think the game involves 12 clubs spread along the M62 including Catalans. I bet they wouldn't know about the lower divisions & that the game is represented from London to the Scottish border & that maybe the viewer has a club not too far away where he or she can watch live rugby league.
Perhaps a shot in the arm would be more coverage on BBC & Channel 4 for all the lower divisions.

RL Commercial, who have got IMG to make all these recommendations ultimately don't have control of what the competition looks like - it's the club owners. You've got turkeys voting for Christmas, you've got 12 club owners who are going to vote on what the competition looks like, how many teams are in it. I'm sure they'd all want more of the TV distribution, so I'd imagine it's more likely to be less teams than more. They're not going to put four more teams in the competition, it's just not going to happen and they're not going to vote for that.

Either the game has to look at a way in which it can influence that decision or just accept this is the competition and it's going to be this or fewer teams going forward.

This is from Jon Wilkin and he alluded to what I said in an earlier post on here. So long as the clubs can veto anything they don’t like this sport will stagnate.

So 10 teams or 14 I guess most owners would vote 10 which would have fans throwing their arms up because we are really sick of loop fixtures. The excitement of looking at the fixtures for the new season looking when we playing Wigan or Saints etc was always a great day, now how many really care when you are playing the same teams multiple times a season. I’ve known families booking holidays around certain fixtures because they didn’t want to miss a certain game now it doesn’t matter.

So in my opinion and as hard as it may be clubs need to go find investment from other sources and stop relying on Sky money. The less financially stable clubs will vote against going to 14.

It was way more entertaining in the past, end of.

This won't be a popular view, but the reason why the game itself is the way it is now is because it's too professional. In the past the players weren't anywhere near the physical level that they are now, so they had to rely on actual rugby skill to play the game.

Now they're all machines and brute force completely dominates. I have no idea what the answer to that is though. It does mean I don't worry too much when people talk about fears of the game ending up part time though. Yes, if that happens obviously the better players will go to union or Australia ASAP, but they can't all go there. Warrington will still exist, and players who just want to play will continue to play and the game might not be as robotic as it is now.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... n-30292972

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/ru ... n-30292972