I agree that attendance-wise overall it's a break-even situation. An extra 348 if you exclude Saints, Widnes & Salford for the reasons you highlighted above. As I stated earlier, Huddersfield allocated 2000 season tickets at £50 each in one of the stands behind the sticks which may explain their increased attendances.

I've seen as many claim that SL attendances are on the increase as those claiming they are on the decline. As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle



Perhaps we can thank all those Stobart lorries for maintaining the attendance levels, eh?

It's not in the middle at all, and far from break even. The truth is:
Increase = 107,406 or 7.82%

A significant increase at any time, let alone in the middle of a recession and with the distraction of the Olympics in the UK.

Why would we exclude those?

Going further, good quality stadia are a part of the match day experience. As the alternatives to attending games improve (i.e. for TV coverage, going HD, adding better analysis etc) then the in-person match day experience must increase in quality too. It's worth noting that even an organisation like the NFL realises they have to keep on top of this with league requirements such as wi-fi in all stadia being mandated.

The issues would come from the owners/coaches if they had to definately be without several first teamers for up to 3-5 SL games. As well as the risk results-wise with missing your best players, any SL game played on the same weekend as a GB-AUS Test Match with up to possibly 6-7 first-teamers missing would most likely see a decent dip in attendence and therefore income for the club.

I accept club chairmen would moan. But most club chairmen are small time idiots holding the game back or dragging it down.

Peter Hood was a club chairman. Should we invest the future of our sport to someone like him?

Do the RFU club chairmen complain about losing their international players for the six nations? or do they realise that the 6 nations is really what makes the whole sport and, therefore their club, blossom.

How depressing that the best comment on this thread is about RU. Spot on though G1.

Club RU has nothing on club RL but they do internationals so much better which gives them better exposure (not just TV but the written press) which leads to bigger sponsors which ends up bringing more money into the game.

For too long we have focused on SL, and yes its great. But many non RL fans simply dont care. RU do the opposite and it works. Dont ask me why, but it does.

Bring back tours!

Don't the RFU hold centralised contracts for some players still, which feed into club finances by taking on a chunk of wage?
I agree, though, that it all sounds a positive step in the right direction.

What about the idea of Divisions as in American sports? Instead of Super League one and Super League two, have East and West (or something similar) with cross divisional matches. This could also provide a basis for an 'all star' game.

I like all this.

But it's never going to happen because both SL and the NRL... club chairmen, TV companies involved in both will never agree to their respective domestic competitions being disrupted in such a way.

Our switch to summer rugby killed the tours therefore the only solution to re-introducing tours (mini or extended) is for us to switch back to a [uwinter season[/u. That's the only way we'll attract the Aussies and Kiwis to tour here during our mid-season and vice-versa.

some good points all round. one thing stands out though and that is something has to change

a very simple solution for a tour would be, for once every 8 years, either SL, or the NRL start and finish the season one month earlier. If, for instance, last year had been a GB tour to Australia, SL could have started 8th of jan, or even as early with the traditional boxing day games (which would give a couple of rest weeks within the season, finishing the season on the 10th of september instead of the 8th of Oct, we could have had the bulk of squad in Aus by the 6th of sept, with the GF players coming the week after.

10th of sept is SL GF,
21st Sept GB (minus GF finalists) v one of the clubs which didnt qualify for the NRL play-offs,
24th GB V Samoa (in Samoa)
28th GB v one of the clubs eliminated from the first round of the NRL play-offs
1st Oct GB v PNG (in PNG)
5th oct GB V one of the eliminated Semi-finalists
9th Oct NRL Grand Final on stand alone weekend
12th Oct GB v Indiginous All Stars
16th Oct GB v Fiji (in Fiji)
21st Oc GB v A Pac Island select side

28th four nations starts, finishing 19th Nov

no competition would need to be disrupted, no players taken from teams still playing.

A very good point but the bigger £££££££ in the RU plus their players contracts getting boosted by the RFU coffers soften that blow.
Plus the extra ££££within their sport allows them to carry much bigger squads i'd lke to see how they'd react to our budgets and income streams but its a fair point overall.

I'm sure if we attended internationals in the same numbers as RU fans, we would have a lot more of tem.

If we were able to compete with Aussies perhaps more people would attend? Difficult to get excited about a forgone conclusion.

We do compete with the Aussies. We beat NZ not long ago. As fans we still don't seem interested in international RL.

When was the last time we beat Australia in a meaningful game?

2006, we've lost the last 6 games.

You said "compete" not "beat"
What about the games against NZ?

I make it the last 7 games we've lost against Australia since that victory in Sydney in 2006.

2006 - Lost 10-33 Brisbane
2008 - Lost 4-52 Melbourne
2009 - Lost 16-26 Wigan
2009 - Lost 16-46 Elland Rd Leeds
2010 - Lost 14-34 Melbourne
2011 - Lost 20-36 Wembley
2011 - Lost 8-30 Elland Rd Leeds

During the SL era, we've played Australia 27 times (21 at home), winning 4, losing 23, scoring 359 points, conceding 813, average scoreline 13-30.

I agree with Sal... I don't regard that awful record as a particularly competitive one.

Pre-SL era (1988-1995) we played Australia 15 times winning 5 and losing 10, scoring 178 points and conceding 258 with an average scoreline of 12-17. The fans used to turn up at bigger stadia in bigger numbers for internationals back then, though being more competitive and closely contested probably had something to do with that.

The SL era has not only killed off proper international tours played at a more meaningful time during the respective club seasons both here and down under, it has also provided a less-competitive GB or England international side. The results speak for themselves.

Good point, couldn't remember which way round the games were!

On the topic of our international record against NZ, that's deteriorated during the SL era too.

We've played them 26 times (17 at home) and won 10, drawn 2, lost 14, scoring 522 and conceding 577 with an average scoreline of 20-22. Of the 17 home games, we've won 10, drawn 2 and lost 5 though one of those was a one-off joke mid-season test at St Helens against a SL-based Kiwi side. Away from home has been a disaster - we've played them 9 times and lost the lot! (7 times against NZ in NZ and twice in the World Cup against them in Oz).

Prior to the SL era, we beat them 8 times out of 12. At home winning 5 out of 6 and away winning 3 and losing 3 in NZ.

An opportunity existed in 2012 to tour NZ for a 3-test series at the end of this SL season, the first one over there since 1996. The RFL's decision not to tour is an appalling one IMO which does not serve the best interests of the game.

I remember clearly because I've attended them all. Having witnessed our alleged international competitiveness - particularly down under on numerous occasions - let's just say my perspective on our competitiveness isn't quite as rosy as others might enthusiastically claim.

In terms of the possible number of competitive teams you have to take account of how the sources of players has changed over the years.

Some years ago we lost RU as a source of players since that sport went pro (every side would have had at least a couple of RU internationals or similar). SL then went overseas crazy, with rules allowing them to have ridiculous numbers of overseas players.

Now junior development is the only way to go for all clubs, as the number (and quality) of overseas signings is falling due to changes to the rules but moreso simple economics making SL less attractive.

Replacing ready-made overseas players with juniors was always going to take time. If it was easy to find and develop juniors then nobody would have bothered with Aussies - but its obviously far harder in England with fewer juniors and poor structures across the sport. It should surprise nobody that quality may dip for a while until production lines are fully mature.

IMO the issue shouldn't be whether 14 teams is sustainable today, but how many teams could be sustained once all clubs have fully mature development systems in place. That may be 14, 12 or 10 teams, but it would be ridiculous to look at the bottom couple of clubs today to make a decision about the potential strength of SL long-term.

It's Catch 22.

Having 14 teams means more British juniors getting an opportunity at SL level than would be the case with 10 or 12. In the short term however, it does spread the talent pool thinly and result in teams looking for short term overseas solutions.

I think a more reasonable comparison would be 1982 to 1995 (14 years vs 15) a total of 22 games, still only won 5, scoring 252 conceding 514 at an average score of 10-21

I probably wouldn't. I was trying to be as generous as I could to the claim that "attendances are on the decline."