Leeds Rhinos chief wants no complaints if players face three games a week

[morley pie eater]

Does anybody know what the point of playing 3 games a week would be?

It can't be Sky, as even supposing they want to show games every night, that wouldn't mean 3 games a week for anybody - actually 1 game per team every 6 days would do it.

I doubt if it would pay off in terms of crowds. If we had 3 home games per fortnight, the average gate would be likely to drop compared to 2, plus the extra expenses associated with putting a game on: rent, staff, electric bill (!) etc. Minimal financial gain whilst risking undermining the quality of the "product" and putting of "customers" in the long run. Not good business.

The only other possible reason could be to save having to give a refund to season ticket holders. Is this Hetherington's thinking?

[moto748]

Maybe, but I agree with you; it's a foolish idea.

[Lazy J]

Would sky want 3 games a week? With all sports trying to condense their seasons there will be loads of opportunities to show live sport.

The other issue is the RL World Cup next year, it’s now up against the olympics and European football championships in fighting for media attention

[Firestarter]

Only positive about this is the squad rotation........ scrap the reserves for another year and let everybody get game time........ can only benefit everyone and nobody can complain about fatigue then....also maybe increase subs/ 17 man teams for this season only

[Wiganer Ted]

Replied with this thought on another thread.
Two games a week, never mind three, will bring players burnout when players play with injuries and knocks. One way would be to restrict players to 5-6 games a month. That would take extensive use of a club's reserves which will mean cancelling the reserve league fixtures.
Over a three month period, 92 days. players would then play 15-18 games.
That could solve a real player problem.