There seems to be a general apathy for any game which isn't a regular round of SL, genuine semi final (ie when the winner goes to the final) or a final. I don't think it's as simple as the cost as wigan, Saints and ourselves have known for several weeks now that we would have at least two playoff games (plenty of time to 'save up').

Rather than season ticket holders having priority when it comes to the scramble for final tickets perhaps priority should go to those with ticket stubs from the playoff games.

On a related topic, I still can't get my head around why a competitive game, on our doorstep, between the two best sides in the world[i (NO, not wigan v wigan U20's if any crusties read this)[/i hasn't sold out despite tickets being available now for weeks. If the chance to see Billy Slater, Darren Lockyer, Benji Marshall etc up close doesn't get RL fans off their backsides then perhaps there is no hope!

It really is very, very simple. Season tickets are hugely beneficial to the club. They provide vital cash flow and security of income and help generate bigger crowd figures. Therefore, it makes huge sense to make them attractive to buy. So therefore anything that makes them more attractive - i.e. more benefits - can only be good things.

Surely you can understand that?

As for the playoffs format - I started coming up with alternatives based on a top 6 format. But then I remembered the answer I have had in mind for lots of debates that have cropped up lately. Such as: should SL be reduced from 14 clubs to 12 or even 10; why are there so many high scoring games; why are attendances poor etc. The answers suggested by many usually involving getting rid of clubs, changing the overseas quota rules, changing the rules of the game itself.

But the simple answer is the one in my mind - the clubs need to get more competitive. Look at the NRL - blowout scores are much less common and games are more unpredictable. Warrington's average score this year - great for us as a novelty, but would get boring after a while - was 40-15. NRL top team Melbourne's average score was 22-13. And after their playoffs - played in front of huge crowds - the NRL Grand Final will be between 2nd placed Manly and 6th placed NZ Warriors. Obviously a much more competitive, even league.

So what I am saying is instead of constantly tweaking the sport and the rules, the clubs need to work harder from bottom up to get stronger. If you only have a few top teams excelling, then regardless of the rules, no. of clubs or format of playoffs, you will have problems.

bring in the NFL draft system, teams from the bottom of the table get to pick players from the academy of the top clubs, that'd shake things up

The problem with having more competitive clubs is that there just doesn't seem to be the money to go around. How many of the teams do you think are spending the full salary cap? At a guess, maybe about half of the teams, possibly even less. There's always going to be a huge difference between top and bottom teams if you've got clubs like Wire and Wigan spending (presumably) near the cap playing against teams like Crusaders and Wakefield whose budget seems to have been found by having a root around under the cushions of the sofa.

Credit crunch?

I am fortunate, I can afford the extra games, but in the present climate there are plenty that can't. I was surprised at the low attendance at the DW, but I don't think our 10,000 was that bad. I remember being a bit gutted that we didn't finish in the top eight in 2009. The eight team format does keep the interest up for some of the lower teams. It's easy for us now We're Not W***** Anymore, to say that that those teams shouldn't be in, but how do you raise standards? It hasn't worked this year, games have been predictable, but it may do next year. One of the teams lower down could win a play off game, and kick on from there. It may give the fans some hope.

Did this happen to us?

And, I don't think constantly comparing ourselves to the NRL is a good thing either.

Given the gates this year, really cheap tickets for season ticket holders ought to be considered (maybe £5 a ticket?). If you want crowds above all else, you could extend the same deal to the away fans as well? That certainly would help at the bigger grounds.

Having done some work for sporting teams I can tell you that season ticket holders are massively more important to any team than casual fans. The money they provide is what the club can use for budgeting, paying upfront for one-off expenses, borrowing (including credit from suppliers) and unforeseen expenses. Since nobody can genuinely predict how many casual fans will turn up (and even when they do it comes one game at a time), nobody outside a club will use the revenue they generate as any form of guarantee.

Even though a season ticket holder gets discounts on entrance over a year, every sporting club's financial ideal would be to sell out the ground to season ticket holders and have no casual spectators at all. That's why, for all the laughter it seemed to cause, Bradford's idea of selling very cheap season tickets was not a bad one at all if they felt that otherwise they'd sell hardly any.

Spot on. I'd do it the old 1 v 8, 2 v 7 and so on. You lose, you're out. home field advantage throughout the playoffs for the winner.

The consolation at that game though was that the pies were excellent

There has only been one playoff game worth watching so far IMO and that was Wigan v Saints in round 1. The rest of the games have been dull to say the least.
It seems that some of the players dont have the appetite for the playoffs nevermind the fans.

If you look at the competition as a whole there have been far too many one sided games in SL this year and the competition is as uneven as its ever been. The salary cap isn't working and neither is the structure of the game.

Mick Monaghan got it bang on a few months back when he said there were too many teams in SL and too many fixtures. The league should be limited to 10-12 teams with relegation and promotion re instated. There is not enough playing talent in the UK to have anywhere near 14 quality teams in SL. And you have to ask about the wisdom of the restrictions on overseas players aswell because in the last couple of years as the restrictions have kicked in the SL product has dropped noticably in terms of quality, Surely no coincidence.

Time will tell whether the England national team will benefit from the overseas restrictions but my guess is that it will make very little difference.

How many SL teams have very average english players on their books when in reality they could get better overseas players for the same cost?
IMO id rather be watching better quality overseas players ply their trade in SL rather than average english joes. If english players are good enough they will come through the ranks whether there are overseas players or not.

The counter argument to the "too many teams for the available talent pool" stance is that maybe, just maybe, Rugby League should be concentrating it's efforts on producing players who are "good enough" in larger volumes, as opposed to reducing the number of participating top level teams thus giving fewer places for young players to aspire to. Just a thought.

The UK doesn't have a large enough population to produce the numbers required especially not for a minority sport such as RL.

You might not like that but its the reality of the situation.

The Australians have both the population and also the fact that RL is there number one sport in their favour. Again we might not like it but its reality.

The England international team will always be in the shadows of Australia and NZ no matter what initiatives the RFL come up with.

IMO i would prefer to be watching a superb SL product with exciting games and good players rather than the absolute rubbish ive witnessed this season.

The RFL are strangling the game in a failed attempt to work miracles with the International team. If they are not careful skys viewing figures will fall and sky will pull the plug which will leave the game back in the mess from where it came not so long ago.

How many SL matches have been worth watching this season? Probably a very small percentage in truth.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the points you're making and it's an undisputed fact that, right now, there are fewer English qualified players than we would like who are above a certain bar in terms of quality. I do personally feel though that reducing the number of teams by 2 will have very little impact on the quality of the competition, people are suggesting reducing the number of teams will have an enormous impact and it quite simply won't, we currently have 14 teams, back in 2002 however we had 12 teams and we were having the same arguments and pointing to blow out score lines, one team dominating, etc.

It will make no difference at all. It is just populism. As you say there are plenty of average English joes hanging around and so it begs the question if there are some real talented stars beneath the surface why are the average English players getting chances ahead of them....?

The England team will be no better off as a result of overseas restrictions but it allows the RFL to make some popular statements about developing our own game and also it allows Eddie and Phil Clarke the chance to tell us all how great the English players are.

The Aussies will still whip our butts but we can use other excuses - the coach wasn't up to standard, like Tony Smith, Brian Noble and David Waite.