I notice how you dont mention last season in your last paragraph

Football is becomoing more and more of an outpost with regards to using a league system to decide the champions:

Rugby League
Rugby Union
Limited overs cricket
Basketball
Darts
Formula One
NFL
Basketball
the list goes on

have all moved away from a straight points system.

indeed even the champions league uses a league system to try to ensure that it gets the teamsthat it wants to qualify for the lucrative play off phase.

It's the weekly rounds that are the money spinning initiative.
Head to head playoffs are clearly the obvious and fair way to find which team is best. The drawback being that they don't give a regular set of home fixtures and severely limit the earning potential of the teams eliminated early in the competition.

You'll note that St Helens and Bradford have had a go on both the swings and the roundabouts here.

Any noises coming from there will almost certainly be hypocritical whining.

Wigan have come close to having a crack but obviously need a higher finishing spot to launch from. Leeds fans at this point just luv it but we'll be on the wrong end of it sometime (probably).

The first past the post system can only be put into place if all teams play each other only on a home and away basis, with none of the "extra fixtures"

As an example, last season in the "normal" Supersleague round Wigan played Saints 4 times, Leeds 3 times and Catalan 3 times.

That's almost 40% of their games against the top 3 teams.

If for example last seasons champions had been decided on the top of the league system they should have only been 6 games against those teams.

In other words the TV bosses have there way has it generates more money, as with all play-off competitions..It's all down to money in the coffers...

Will the English Prem ever have a GF....No!

Yet they're one of the the most money orientated businesses going. Was the talk of a "39th game" not suggested for revenue purposes?

Which pretty much suggests you are tying yourself in knots and contradicting yourself

Is the "English Prem" really a good example? How many teams have actually won it over how many years?

They don't have a salary cap in the "English Prem" either? Should we scrap that?

In professional sport you do know what the "professional" bit means don't you?

Problem for the emglish Prem is that they would have to cut the league down to about 15/16 teams in order to fit the play off games in and nobodies prepared to suggest that. There is also the problem that by having a knockout competition at the end there would be potential pitfalls for the big 4 which may mean that they are knocked out by a lesser team and could affecttheir qualification for the Champions League.

The big clubs see the Premier League as a means to qualify for the lucrative Champions League anyway, which to them is the play off system.

Over the last ten years 3, so on a par with SL...

Is the english prem a good example? I'd say so due to the fact that the TV bosses and PL could suggest a GF or a 39th game. Would it happen, no!

My point is we already have a knock-out cup in the CC, if we have the GF, what's the point in the CC anymore?

Does this make the CC more financially important to a club than the GF as it generates more cash for the winning team?

The most lucrative single competition in northern hemisphere rugby league is the World Club Championship. More of the proceeds are retained by the competing clubs than either the Challenge Cup or Grand Final.

Is that measured by income, profit, or split of income from the game, or some combination?

Dunno how its' measured but I was told the same by someone at the club. The profits from the 2005 encounter covered the clubs' contribution to the Carnegie stand apparently.

Split of income from the game. IIRC Leeds take more financially out of the gate receipts for a 35,000 crowd at Elland Road than they would for a sell out Wembley for a Challenge Cup Final.

In that case lets have another one built with the proceeds from this years.

That would be a waste of money the other one isn't 2 years old yet.

I said "Leeds contribution". There were grants and a sizeable contribution from Carnegie for the current one.

I meant another stand of the same quality. Not another stand in place of the Carnegie one.But I'm sure you knew that. I also appreciate there will have also been alot of external investment with the Carnegie stand.

I was merely having a suggestive moment, wishfully thinking..."wouldn't another stand of the same quality as the current Carnegie Stand be a treat."

Joking aside though its a bloody nice stand. If Leeds see fit to invest in another of the same quality I don't think it will be a bad thing. I trust Mr Hethrington however will do what he sees fit with our increased revenue.

we haven't bought one with last years yet



as an aside, no wonder the scousers can't afford a new stadium, they keep imploding in the GF and blowing their chances of a pay day in the WCC

Very True. I'd be interested to see where these funds have gone/are going. I'd also love to know how much we made revenue wise from the WCC this year. Anyone know if clubs have to ever release a financial review (or something similar) like this and if so are they for anyones eyes or just those deemed worthy??? Im aware football teams release their profit margins????

There must be a fair chance that Leeds are saving up for future investment - both the North and South stands will probably need replacing in the short-to-medium term.

Of course many Football teams are PLC's so have to release their accounts

They do have a playoff, it's called the Champions League with a final and it's the biggest single club football game in the World. The Premier League is just a qualifying tournament for that.

Chelsea sacked a double Premier League winning manager because he couldn't win the Champions League. Get it?

I think the South stand is very much on the clubs' agenda. However, securing external funding in the current climate will prove much harder than it was for the Carnegie Stand.