Which he's backed up with cold hard facts.

I think the loss of the Brigantes was huge. The DW is a morgue these days.

It's been generally better this year than last, albeit not by much. The Brigantes did bring a lot of noise, but it was hijacked & ruined by a minority of morons.
A discussion that's been done to death on here several times.

I think a collective nervousness as to which team is actually going to turn up isn't helping. With error strewn displays & inconsistent thinking on the park, regardless of the fact that we've not lost at home for ages, there's a pervasive sense of jitters that hums around like a distant murmuration.

Thursdays don't suit a lot of people (me included) and for those on shifts, not knowing in advance what the fixtures are going to be in these last games makes it impossible to get to the stadium for a not insignificant number. And I think this factoid crystallisation might well have an impact on at least early ST sales for next year. How many games is it that you have to miss until the season ticket becomes the reverse of what it's supposed to be?

Add all that to school holidays & people saving their pennies until (or if) we get to OT, I don't think it's at all surprising that the casual walk-up supporters aren't, and the majority of the bums on seats are die-hards.

Yeah, agree with most of that. As a long-distance fan, I've just been looking at the remaining fixtures. Normally I'd go to Headingley on Friday, but I've got something on locally on the Saturday which pretty much counts that out. Then, like a lot of folk, I'm on holiday for two weeks. I have nothing planned, but will go away for a few days 'on spec', depending on weather etc. So I might get to Warrington. Maybe. I'll probably go to the Millwall game as it's *only* 100 miles away, and I could meet up with my son. Then, maybe, maybe one out of two of Hull or Saints. Saints is the more attractive fixture, but Hull is last game at the DW. Decisions, decisions. And the Saints game could be pretty much a dead rubber if the four are cut and dried by then.

I agree with WarriorCraig that the new format is an improvement on what we had. But as he says, it's no panacea.

The Saints won't be a dead rubber at all. It will probably decide who will finish second and get the home tie in the play-offs.

Well, I hope you're right. Time will tell.

The loss of the Brigantes was crucial in keeping me going going to all home and away games.
No way did I want to be associated with a group of fans waving a scull & crossbones flag, wearing hoodies and covering their faces up so cctv could not recognize them. The DW Stadium is still the best stadium in Rugby League and is a better place without the Brigantes.

disagree, thats not what they were, people like that just started to associate themselves with the name and group.

Back in 1996 the football off season was a lot longer. Sky Sports also had a smaller portfolio than it does now. Rugby League had it's place and it kind of made sense (holidays aside). These days the football off season is non-existent, the cricket season is far more compelling than it was back then (largely due to 20-20 and quicker one day matches), a lot more people travel abroad and how people spend their time during the summer has probably changed a lot. Rugby League has a lot more competitors than it did in 1996.

Let's not forget to that Sky are only concerned with TV audiences. Rugby League is for the most part a great T.V sport - it's relatively short, fits into a busy schedule, can be exciting and is generally entertaining. Whether the crowds turn up or not at the ground, the T.V audience will always turn up and keep Sky and it's advertisers happy.

My main concern with the switch to summer is that, apart from 3-4 seasons the game is nowhere near as exciting as it was. Summer has failed to improve standards or make RL more exciting.

I've said this before but watching old matches from the 80's and 90's on Youtube is a breath of fresh air. Today's game is dominated by size, speed of defense and is very structured - creativity is stifled and frowned upon.

That applies to all sports, though. You can watch old footage of Brazil strutting their stuff in the 1970 World Cup, or Gareth Edwards dancing round opponents in the mud, but defensive systems have improved out of all recognition; they couldn't do that today, billiard-table pitches and sunshine notwithstanding.

I disagree with your RU analogy. It's still not great but it is far better to watch now than back in the day, mainly due to the back rowers being far better athletes now. Bill Beaumont once claimed that some of his best games were those when he never actually touched the ball. He may well have been exaggerating to make his point but he made it nonetheless.
With regard to our sport, I don't know what the answer is. My own view is that too many rule changes have sanitised the sport. It's not too far back in the past when you couldn't wait to see Leeds Bradford just to see what Baz and Stu got up to. All gone now, I'm afraid, resulting in a sport that sees Ben Pomeroy sent off for a "sickening" shoulder charge. Now, where's my flat cap? I know it's raining but the whippet still needs exercising....

You do realise that doesn't make sense right.

If we played Saints, Leeds and Wire twice at home every year we'd get more ticket revenue I.e. two 15k vs Saints is better than one 24k game.

Personally I'm not bored with playing the true big boys. At least on those games I'm getting bang for my buck. I'm getting to see a superior quality of game and one which is actually enjoyable.

Also what would your solution be? If we'd have played Wakey instead of Hudds would that have suddenly brought about a bigger crowd?

FWIW I think we want the same - close games that are of a high quality and full of atmosphere. Sadly I feel we differ in the way to get to that. If it was up to me I'd cut the league down to 10 and close up shop to promotion and relegation. Spread our thin talent pool around a smaller number of teams which would in turn bring up the depth, quality and competitiveness of the whole league.

Drop Salford, Wakey and Hudds (mixture of either no money, history or fans) and spread thier players around the rest and it's instantly a stronger comp.

Sometime I do wonder if we should just play touch and pass such is the outcry every time there's a high tackle, a shoulder charge (a legal one should never have been banned) or a fair and square scuffle. Sky mull over every little incident as if it's a trial.

Maybe too though the players these days are to blame. It only needs the slightest incident for several "stars" of the game to get all up in arms and in the referees face as if it's a big injustice. Years ago players took a whack, threw some punches and then got on with it and respected each other and the official. Some players wouldn't have lasted two minutes against the likes of Kelvin Skerret and Sonny Nickle - two great players who fans loved to hate.

I stopped making sense years ago mate. If I ever did.

What I want is 32 teams in two divisions. I watch Wigan home and away and I get bored watching the same old teams week in and week out. I must admit though, I'm just off to Headingley right now, I'm not looking forward to it. And that's not because I think we will get beat, but because I've seen Leeds more than enough.

As for your idea why not just stick with Saints Leeds Wire and Wigan and bin the rest? You can watch a stronger comp each week. Of course if you'd have argued that in 1982 Wigan might've been binned off too. Never to return. Just a thought.