What really annoys me about scrums is teams never have the right amount of players in one from the off. We always wait until someone runs in and fills in. Not hard to get 6 blokes in the scrum with a half at the side.

Bad sales people are great at "BLAME" rather than selling a product. If we'd had a steady decline in attendances then I'd appreciate that maybe it's the product that is off, but the average over 22 seasons is 8,591 and last season we averaged 8,568, so we haven't shed fans as a competition although I would be concerned with the average age of our supporters going up.......
The issue (and this thread to get it back on line) is how do we attract more fans and then keep them coming back? Is it down to the RFL, the Clubs or a combination of both?

Isn't that to do with different scrum make-ups depending on who's putting it in or where the scrum is played, as they put different players in the attacking/defensive lines at different points? It's more to do with players not realising it was their turn.

At times this can contribute to it. But usually when it happens the nearest player just fills in. So it just looks like they have no idea how to form a scrum rather than for tactical purposes.

I know defenses like to have their FB in the LF role. And for attack a hooker will go to LF to ensure good distribution if the half doesn't pass. But when the play is stopped due to lack of numbers it's usually down to the players not using their heads and just getting in there. I know I'm being picky but we all have those little things that grind their gears and this happens to be mine. Ironic since I am a hooker and in the scrum too

In my simple view of the world the answer to those problems are easy. Putting matches on at a time when the younger generation can attend, like weekend afternoons. Not have matches played until 10pm on a school night with a long drive home afterwards.

I agree about following what works. With only 3 trophies to play for teams are always going to do what gives them the best chance. I just found watching SL recently boring. Although it annoys me the amount of forward passes creeping into the game. Hopefully clubs will get back towards playing a more expansive game.
I just which that like Cas clubs find an identity of play that suits them, and stick to it. But like you say it's not going to happen.

The thing with scrums is it was there great feeling if your side won one against the head.
I think that in scrums we should have the pack that's on field should be in the scrums. Giving backs a chance to do something for at least 1 play. And that the b'all should go down the middle to the hookers, and not the farce we have at the moment of putting it in to whoever's at LF feet making the whole thing pointless.

We'll just have to disagree on the part of wether scrums are important or not, and wether to scrap them or not.

Just a point on previous players skill level.
Part of the problem with modern players is that in those old years.players were to develop and learn about 1 position. Players learnt everything to do with there position, because that was were they were expected to play. And how to be the best in those positions.if they could play more than 1 position was a bonus.
Were as the modern game/coaches prefer players who can play a number of different positions. Sort of a jack of all trades master of none attitude.

starting to warm to the idea of eddie hearn and matchroom , seems talks have taken place

could do with an over haul as its not going anywhere fast super league

I've heard this pretty often, not sure how effective it actually is. If it was that straightforward the teams with a history of playing sundays should be in healthier positions than they generally are, crowd-wise. Then I look at my club, Leeds, who opted to go for a Friday. These nights became a highlight for good numbers (some would say too good) of teenagers, not all of whom were interested in sobriety. However, a fair percentage of these are now paying adults - soon to be paying more in our re-furbed South Stand - who will in a few years doubtless be moaning about the antics of the new generation. Of course it has helped massively that the team has been successful in recent years but the point stands that - coincidentally or deliberately - the club probably managed to recruit new paying fans more successfully than an equivalent targeting under 10s is or was likely to.

I fail to see why people think the Hearns are any sort of answer to our problems.

The Hearns are event promoters, and their entire business model relies on having control - control of the audience, control of the talent, control of the event, control of the sponsors - control over everything. They would never get that with 12 Super League clubs and 14 Championship clubs all pulling in different directions.

How do the Hearns / Matchroom solve problems that are predominantly rooted at club level?

well thats why there would to be discussions held between all parties

they seem to know how to get things working! plenty of upsides from them..... lets face it , cant do any worse than what we have now

they already have a great working relationship with sky, our main backer!!

The club chairmen would never give the Hearns the control they would want.

Hearn is an event promoter, not a 'sports' promoter per-se (sport is just the tool). With his events, he controls everything - the venue, the sponsors, the players, the experience - he could never get that with rugby league.

I personally don't believe that Hearn is that interested in the sport, but there's no question that he's enjoying the attention. It's actually quite embarassing that we're people are looking to him as some sort of messiag and allowing him to feign interest in our sport purely to massage his own personal ego.

The clubs that have collectively allowed this situation to happen really are pathetic.

The SL chairmen now have control over their competition and I for one would hope that they are looking outside the sport for "expressions of interest" from companies keen to work in partnership to grow their comp. Hearn fits into this bracket perfectly......if he thinks he can fill St James's Park for Magic, then by all means let him have the same terms as the marketing team for the 2013 BIG BASH had, with a small retainer, tight reins on spending and a reward on results. If he thinks he can sell the TV rights separately around the world then let him and SKY argue that out......but to dismiss a bloke who between him and his old fella have had far more success in 22 years than we have is just stupid.
If he does fill St James's then let him "pitch" for other business, but the real difference here is having people ask us for the business and not us begging to be noticed.