The strength of RL in the UK

[jasonnlouise]

To me the problem began when super league was introduced and clubs wouldn't merge, I understand fans didn't want their teams to lose their identity but how many of those fans go and watch their respective teams lose it was done in Australia ie St George/Illawarra which was still a far stronger league. originally they wanted Calder (Castleford, Wakefield, halifax) Cumbria (Workington, Whitehaven, Barrow, carlisle) Cheshire (Warrington, widnes) Humber (Hull&KR) this would have created a far more competitive league but and a stronger national team but now we are lumbered with playing sub standard supposedly top flight teams (london) and beating them with half a team or less, so I would say our league lacks strength and direction from the top and will continue to do so until people of vision get a hold of our game.

[Owd Codger]

To me the problem began when super league was introduced and clubs wouldn't merge, I understand fans didn't want their teams to lose their identity but how many of those fans go and watch their respective teams lose it was done in Australia ie St George/Illawarra which was still a far stronger league. originally they wanted Calder (Castleford, Wakefield, halifax) Cumbria (Workington, Whitehaven, Barrow, carlisle) Cheshire (Warrington, widnes) Humber (Hull&KR) this would have created a far more competitive league but and a stronger national team but now we are lumbered with playing sub standard supposedly top flight teams (london) and beating them with half a team or less, so I would say our league lacks strength and direction from the top and will continue to do so until people of vision get a hold of our game.

Spot on, and will never happen as long as the RFL allow the game to be run on sentiment and living in the past when crowds where larger at a time when most people had nothing more to do but watch sports like Rugby League, hence the massive crowds.

What you are saying is correct and should have been done in 1974, when mergers took place in Councils and the game at that time was in a poor state.

Our game is community based and in many cases, clubs work in conjunction with local Councils, so what is the point of a Council having to deal with two and some cases, three clubs.

If a company has two factories and there is not enough business to make two viable, they close one down and concentrate on the other, but not in our game where we are heading for melt down unless radical changes are made in the number of clubs.

As long as our game continues with so many clubs, here in Lancashire and Yorshire, it will continue to struggle.

Bigger and stronger clubs are the way forward for both on the playing side and supporters.

Glad to see that I am not the only one facing reality and the future.

[LORENZO]

Rugby League would die in months if SKY took away it's support. Where would the salary cap be then - £500,000???

[sheepsteeth]

I think the salary cap as been a big problem. The idea was to even things out. I don't see things being even across all teams and if we do have a few teams at the top who are closer it's because we've brought the best teams down a level.

The other issue is the lack of exposure on terestrial TV. We need SKY but the BBC are a disgrace the way they treat our game. They put no effort into promoting the fact fixtures are going to be live on the BBC.


Making things equal should be about bringing the bottom clubs up to a higher level not allowing them to bring the top clubs down.

[markill]

I think the salary cap as been a big problem. The idea was to even things out. I don't see things being even across all teams and if we do have a few teams at the top who are closer it's because we've brought the best teams down a level.

The other issue is the lack of exposure on terestrial TV. We need SKY but the BBC are a disgrace the way they treat our game. They put no effort into promoting the fact fixtures are going to be live on the BBC.


Making things equal should be about bringing the bottom clubs up to a higher level not allowing them to bring the top clubs down.

Talent is finite. Until talent levels are brought up there would always be an element of other teams being brought down to some extent. If we by and large had the pick of all the best athletes then we either wouldn't need a cap or at least it might be liked more by those who don't like it. The problem is not the salary cap though, its the amount of money/funding/exposure that is the problem.

For example, the game would be better off right now if Marwan Koukash gave the RFL £10mil a year to distribute between clubs and spent £5mil a year on developing talent in Salford and beyond, rather than let him spend £15mil a year on his first team to have Slater, Inglis, Cronk, SBW, Gallen etc. This is just an illustrative example, hypothetical numbers/players plucked out of the air.

Without the other issues you have acknowledged being addressed there will always be an element of 'bringing the best teams down' becuase we don't have 12 O'Loughlins, 12 Hardakers, 12 Robys, 12 Hills etc for every team to get one each. We have the same amount of quality players now that we would have if the cap went, just now they are spread around more than they would be if the cap wasn't there. We need 12 (or more) Koukash owners and 12 (or more) international players for every position for the cap to do waht you say it should do. In my eyes , an almost impossible dream. So we have a cap that means ths teams all should (if well administered/managed) get the chance to have a few of the best players each, a few of the best up and comers each, and few of the next best each etc.

The cap isn't the problem. The resource we work from is (heck, many teams can't even afford to spend to the cap at the moment)

[Owd Codger]

I think the salary cap as been a big problem. The idea was to even things out. I don't see things being even across all teams and if we do have a few teams at the top who are closer it's because we've brought the best teams down a level.

The other issue is the lack of exposure on terestrial TV. We need SKY but the BBC are a disgrace the way they treat our game. They put no effort into promoting the fact fixtures are going to be live on the BBC.


Making things equal should be about bringing the bottom clubs up to a higher level not allowing them to bring the top clubs down.

The sport at the BBC is controlled by the 'old school tie' hence its mass coverage of events like the Six Nations, Wimbledon, Open Golf Championship, Athletic's, and the Boat Race. They are only interested in the Challenge Cup because it is a listed event which has to be on freeview and only cover it as a token gesture to show there is no bias against our game.

A example of their treatment of our game is happening at the moment with the 'nationwide' edition of the Super League Show switched from mid Tuesday Afternoon to the early hours of a Morning due to their 'over the top coverage' of the Commonwealth Games, a event, which I suspect the vast majority of the public are not interested in as much has the BBC seemed to think.

[markill]

The sport at the BBC is controlled by the 'old school tie' hence its mass coverage of events like the Six Nations, Wimbledon, Open Golf Championship, Athletic's, and the Boat Race. They are only interested in the Challenge Cup because it is a listed event which has to be on freeview and only cover it as a token gesture to show there is no bias against our game.

A example of their treatment of our game is happening at the moment with the 'nationwide' edition of the Super League Show switched from mid Tuesday Afternoon to the early hours of a Morning due to their 'over the top coverage' of the Commonwealth Games, a event, which I suspect the vast majority of the public are not interested in as much has the BBC seemed to think.

Coverage could definitely be greater. On all platforms by all broadcasters. But I wonder how much other broadcasters have ever tried to get rights off BBC and Sky? Or offered better coverage/exposure?

Both could do more but both don't treat us as badly as people like to think either in my view. The only sport/competition you've mentioned above that isn't one offs or major stand alone events is six nations. An international event featuring all the home nations up against each other, so fairly unique these days (other than the currently occurring commonwealth games of every 4 years). I don't criticise them for this. And where is their weekly coverage of domestic/European union? 5live extra, like ours. Nothing on TV.

The super league show isn't treated as well as we would hope and I would like more games on the main 5live. But then the world cup coverage was OK. All England games on TV, all games on 5live or 5live extra, regular highlight shows. Local radio also give really good coverage of games that is accessible by all online so you can get live coverage of almost all super league games from the BBC. We also get 2 or 3 live games on sky each week now along with 3 or 4 other shows on their channels about the sport.

I don't know if the above applies to that many sports outside football. If only we were covered like football, says pretty much every other sport as well as ours.