You raised this on another thread. Do we reduce the clubs share of an already heavily reduced SKY deal further??

I could see SKY avoiding showing the bottom four clubs and their struggles, and if that happened the other SL clubs would question how do these extra clubs justify getting any SKY money. I can remember when London were in Superleague and were slaughtered weekly in the 2014 season? they didn't earn a penny of the SKY money

We must ensure the TV audience sees competitive games week in and week out hence the salary cap.

Sorry, I missed your post, so please take mine as agreeing with you.....

They can go down to ten and this was suggested a few seasons back. Ten is the lower limit. They voted more recently on making Superleage 2 x 10 but that got defeated.

Again we have to provide quality and competetiveness to the TV deal (Jamie Peacock made this clear) The thinking may well be that as we already get away with playing each other 3 times in a number of fixtures, we may as well go the full extent on this. Everyone play each other 3 times, ensure all the derbies are played three times, ensure that we don't have to offer SKY two poor clubs playing when we can offer them another Wiganv.v.Saints.

But therein lies the problem - many of us purists will say "Oh no not wigan and saints again" ...and we would be much much happier if say if Salford and Leigh were on instead. But the question is which of these two fixtures on SKY would draw the biggest TV audience? Wigan and saints yet again for the third time (AND they played each other on the BBC in the cup), or a look at Salford and Leigh for the first time on TV in the season??

No apologies required MR it made me smile.

As a poster of a certain age, one old enough to remember the pogo stick as a 1970's fashionable 'toy' (instrument of torture more like) I never understood it's popularity

I Dunno, I loved watching the girls on our estate....bouncing up and down on 'em

The voting function doesn't work & shows zero votes cast *on my Samsung android phone at least !

I thought it was just me.

It all depends on how many games sky are willing to pay for.

Personally I would watch wigan play saints, leeds or wire 5 times a season as they are usually the best games to watch. Not sure wigan v saints can be blamed for crowds dropping either.

Yeah not sure why it isn't working..... I assumed it was just people weren't bothering.

Can't see any good reason why it wouldn't work....

Anyone have any tips?

It's happened before on this site, it's one of if not the most antiquated forums I have ever used, they are probably using the wrong kind of coal !!!

All the more reason not to have an additional repeat by way of the loop fixtures.
It would be far better to have a 14 club top flight

Jamie Peacock changes his mind, depending on which club he's at.
His views whilst at KR were substantially different to when he was at Leeds.

Therefore, it's fair to say that he wants what is best for his club (at the time) and not what is best for the game.

Whilst at Leeds, he was an advocate of cutting SL from 12 to 10 but, he suddenly changed his mind at KR

Peacock was just thinking about his wallet, Wilkin is another one when he realised he had to find other club hence his expansion stance

A second fixture against a "big" club (the definition of big varies) draws more fans through the gate than the first fixture against a "small" club, that is a good reason to have them. Clubs should get themselves in a position where they can sell out a decent number of tickets no matter who the away team is, but that isn't the way most people in our game think unfortunately.

i detest loop-fixtures. cut the number of matches in SL, simple.

Then you cut the income mate, you cut sponsors exposure to their advertisements, you cut matchday income like hospitality, you cut fans spend at grounds and you can't provide SKY the content they want......

On the thread caused to be locked by the usual 2 or 3 people (so I have to reply here) you suggested Perez didn't talk about players much. For the record (and I will leave this for discussion elsewhere) he promised players through converting grid iron players to RL. Thousands of big strong and fast college footballers were to be developed to a high standard and developed "pretty quickly" his exact words.

This was the plan to get round the criticism that Canada don't play RL and it would be decades before they produced quality SL RL if they produced ant at all.

So it was a major part of Perez's plan as important as the TV deal that failed very early on so OF COURSE he stopped talking about it mate, every time he was asked on it his answer was changed to it would take TWP years to develop players. But even that was untrue as TWP didn't even engage with Canada RL to set up junior RL.

Plus rugby Union dominated all the grass roots Canadian Rugby. And that's that........

Yes I see the double standard, but at Leeds he publicly pushed for 10 clubs in SL and I think he did this regardless or what the Leeds hierarchy thought . I don't recall him publicly pushing for superleague to stay 12 at HKR.??

If you actually read such a statement attributed directly to him, then I will have to accept that??.

Don't agree (rare for me to disagree with you) on Peacock. No comparison at all.......

Wilkin swanned off to Canada thinking about his wallet and who can blame him, exactly the same for McDermott. Both therefore had to support the North American dream and did so strongly and publicly as major figures in the Toronto club.

I have no doubt these two guys were not really thinking about North American expansion much at all, but they duly bought into it publicly as they were duty bound to do so and paid more than enough to do so..

One ONE MAN decided to leave the game there the whole thing collapsed faster than a stack of playing cards, proving beyond all doubt RL was never going to take off and it was a matter of time before pro-Rugby Union in Canada were 99.99%owners of all Rugby in Canada.

The statements they have both made since insisting RL had a future there have been duly plastered all over the RL and sporting press. It's good filler for the RL media.

And of course nobody in the RL press was going to challenge either of these lads on their view that it was all working and set to take off big time.

Although on the face of it, what you say is correct,
However, the loop fixtures tend to be against a mixture of clubs and they can be against the so called smaller clubs or, Catalan, where the away support is somewhat smaller.

I know that "we" have tinkered with the top half of the league playing last seasons higher placed clubs and with playing odd numbers (in terms of league finish) and even numbers but, it's just fixture overload.
The ideal would be to have a balanced fixture program.
It seems crazy that top spot (or second) and with that, home advantage in the semis, could be decided by having an "easier" set of loop fixtures.

It's the same with the magic fixture.

Tough, the players will have to take a pay cut.

Is there anyway to ask mods or site-runners about it?

But would you prefer that to replacing loop fixtures with regular annual international or regional (SoO-like) fixtures??

Yes, as said before, surely this is all the more reason to get rid of loop fixtures? If you get repeat fixtures between the best teams via cups and playoffs anyway, surely the loop fixture is just a less exciting way of doing this?

Big fan of Internationals, but wouldn't swap it for England 50+ point wins against France, Wales etc.

Roses clashes definitely if given the right marketing/importance