There are exceptions, but they’re few and far between. A poor Warrington in the early noughties springs to mind. rlAlbirex Niigatarl in the J-League is another. Few and very far between!



I’m not sure about the TV argument anymore, what with the advent of digital television (and its plethora of extra channels) and the trends of younger people consuming more content on their internet-enabled devices instead. The attendances and televised audiences for darts tournaments have increased rapidly in recent years, probably thanks to the introduction of the Premier League on Sky Sports. This upturn in interest has no doubt facilitated more coverage of darts on terrestrial TV, not vice versa.



That’s the ubiquitous understanding of football kicking in again. [iIf it doesn’t act like football, then it’s mickey mouse[/i. It might not be an alien concept for much longer though. rlSerie A’s breakawayrl casts doubt on the future of Serie B and, therefore, those clubs that wish to be promoted via the ‘traditional’ route. Also, the murmurs of a European Super League are persistent and that will be a rl‘closed shop’rl (closed in as much as only the members can vote in new licencees).

I think National League Two could be split regional conferences (like the NFL, for example) which could aid expansion; but the idea is so alien us, it would be derided and doomed from the get go.

Junior Devils fella, of which there are a fair few on here.

I think you are under-playing the importance of TV. For example, a football game on SKY (last I looked) get's around 400,000 viewers. Meanwhile the CC semi-final between City and United pulled in over 8m viewers. SKY cannot match the coverage of the five channels. Widespread coverage on terrestial TV is the best publicity IMO. City received a rush of ticket sales after the game.


'"

Yeah, I know what you’re saying but the City/United clash is a unique example; it was the most anticipated domestic match I can remember for a very long time. And it was broadcast at prime time. I think it shows that top Premier League football matches on ITV or BBC1 could be a boon. In respect to rugby league, which would never get a prime time slot on terrestrial, the allure of a Challenge Cup game on a Saturday afternoon at 2.15pm is hardly comparable.



But you can argue promotion and relegation in league competition only exists because of football’s success and popularity. Rugby league and cricket had single division tournaments for many, many years before switching to multiple divisions.

I think our culture craves more for David vs. Goliath type battles — a recongnition of who are the big teams and who the minnows. The NRL ideal wouldn’t work over here for that reason. The seemingly nonsensical argument that the NRL is [itoo[/i good and robotic as a result does exist.



That’s a given. The ‘shit your pants’ (or ‘y-fronts’) factor has gone from watching Salford matches these-days because of the safety net.

Bringing it back to the original tone of the thread, I’m not sure these factors largely affect Salford’s turnouts. As you hinted at, there’s no secret formula... or there might be, it’s just bloody hard to find.