Another Leeds mon who went to watch his first game last night.

Not it wasn't. It was just part of his vision for a Super League.



Given the problems experienced by the smaller clubs particularly in West Yorkshire I think he spotted a long time ago what the problems were and they are still with us today. His solution (as I said) wasn't going to work because fans of the clubs to make up the likes of Calder were not going to accept it. That was their prerogative but they have to accept the consequences i.e they remain small clubs that can't compete.

As to why you would have had bigger clubs that is patently obvious in that the idea was to combine a number of small clubs in an areas into one larger club.

He will also eventually be proved right. Not that we will end up with merged clubs but that sooner or later the small clubs won't be part of SL.

The merger idea was also his way of giving the fans of these small clubs something to shout for at the top of the sport. The fact it was rejected didn't surprise me at all but the last thing that does is show he wasn't on the right lines in that he viewed certain smaller clubs as incompatible and unsustainable in a professional sport.

He knew that was the case and I think he has been proved right as the teams he wanted to merge (who are still in SL) are consistently some of the lowest supported with the least chance of sporting success.

So your solution is to provide failing clubs with mega-rich owners?

It can work, but how often is it going to happen? And how long will it take for the likes of Barrow, Wakey and Cas to attract someone of that ilk?

At present, British RL has a finite life as a full-time professional sport. Constant contrivances by the RFL to keep the perennial losers at the highest level are ensuring this.

You're right to say that the tail is longer than the dog, but my point is that - if Mo had had his way originally - it may not have been by now.

Wakefield already do. Cas and Hull KR are the only British clubs in Super League which aren't backed by a decent-sized investor. Which was why the original BBC report missed the point. If they had looked at whether it was healthy for more than half the league to be reliant on rich individuals who were happy to cover the losses via ever-rising loans or loan write-offs it might have been interesting (even though this is a model common across British sport). To assume that the debt position in itself was unsustainable was deluded. Debt in its own right isn't a problem but George Riley and his fella from Sheffield didn't seem to understand that.

Being in debt, and not being able to service the debt are two very different scenarios. No point in the BBC looking at the detail though, archetypal tabloid nonsense.