Should we hope leeds to get knocked out early so they can focus on SL, and pray they don't have their annual season end of slump?

..(though the last time we got knocked out early in 04 we managed to carry our form through)

Or should we concentrate mainly on the CC as our best chance of silverware?

I agree. It's something I've supported for some time.

I love the cup the excitment waiting for draw etc you dont get that in play offs or sl.
Super league is a joke anyway why worry about losing 1 game cause it doesnt matter anyway just play well in 6 games at end of season.
Hence why saints had no threats of putting out a acdamy team to play catalan.
I just been watching a very enjoyable game of rl involving a nl club and sl team lot better than most of games of super league this year.
If leeds was in the nl it'd be all we'd be talking about playing super league teams why take out the lower teams chance to play big guns.

If anything the cup shows us what we need to do to develop the lower leagues which rfl ignore and make no effort to help them.

I think the role of the CC going forward ought to be primarily about promoting the game outside SL. As a result I'm certainly not in favour of scrapping it. And making it pre-season would simply lengthen the season.

I'm not sure that at the moment the rules allow for teams to intentionally field weakened sides, but IMO SL sides should be allowed to do that in the CC. That way if a SL side decides to concentrate on the Cup (e.g. because they may be at best mid-table) they can choose to compete and field strong sides. Alternatively, a side scrapping for survival/top spot might choose to field a virtual Academy side. I guess it would end up being like the League Cup then - some top names getting knocked out early, one or two SL sides fighting for it, and possibly one or more heavyweight sides involved at the final stages.

An alternative would be to force all SL sides to field a minimum number of U-21 players (i.e. outside the 20:20 or whatever the system is now) - say 5. That would have the benefit of giving first team games to a number of youngsters but with perhaps enough star players to keep the gloss on the comp for lower league sides.

I know this isn't ideal as non-SL fans would want to watch top SL sides against their team, but it's probably getting towards the time that a decision was made en masse by SL, and not individual teams, and if it came down to it, I'd rather lose the CC than weaken SL.

What about a handicapping system?

For example a NL2 side gets between 40 and 50 points starts depending on their finishing positioning.

NL1 sides get between 20 to 30 points start.

The only problem you would have if don't get one of the top 4 clubs getting to the final you will have a half empty stadium?

Say Wakefield v Huddersfield final - 50k max.

I know. Why don't we just put the lower league clubs through to the next round.

This is professional sport FFS.

Danny I agree - just trying to broaden the debate.

I would scrap it - the results this week end are a farce as is all this "how nice it is for the guys in NL 1 & 2 to get 70 points put them" b0llox.

It is an outdated competition that hasn't changed to match the changes in the game it has simply lost public support.

I don't agree in the slightest that it has lost public support. The early round games are not as appealing as they could be, and lower prices might well be an answer to that problem, but the cup still has a magic about it for a lot of people, and the final remains a big showpiece event. I think the assumption that low attendances = people not being bothered about the cup is a flawed one. Its true that a NL2 side isn't going to beat a SL side, but the cup still produces a few upsets every year, and a couple of SL sides got run fairly close by NL1 sides this weekend, so the possibility is still there. See Toulouse and KR's semi-final appearances in the last 2 years for details. I think you just have to accept that fans of top clubs are more interested in the later rounds because there isn't much if any doubt of the outcome in a match like that on Friday at Headingley, for example, but when the cup starts to throw up big games crowds will rise a bit, albeit not quite to SL levels (reasons of pre-paying ticket holders for example) but even Soccerball has that problem and there are no serious calls for the FA Cup to be scrapped.

Keep the Cup, its still a good competition, and the final will still be a big showpiece, and a time to put the game in the national spotlight. Which it needs.

Agreed.

This reminds me about the way the apethetic RL fan base moan and complain about the lack of investment in international Rugby League but fail to get off their fat, cloth capped ar5es and actually watch it.

Same thing here. Glory hunting fans who'll turn out in droves for the showpiece final and semi finals stay away from the earlier rounds (which have an important function for trickling down finance to lower clubs) and then come on here and moan about the state of the CC in the earlier rounds.

Here's the thing. If these games were better attended by fans such as Mr Bywater then the lower clubs would make more money from the ties thus enabling them to build their infrastructures. Maybe then the next time they get drawn at Headingley they'll be able to field a better side making for a more competitive match that will attract yet more fans, especially those of a fickle nature.

Why not just seed the Super League clubs in earlier rounds and make sure that they are drawn away. Therefore giving the funds to the lower leagues, and also creating more of a match than that you get when the lower teams play away at Super League clubs.

Would our fickle fekkwitts have beem more likely to attend in Workington than they would at Headingley? How would that have helped Worky?

Agreed. And there's plenty of lower league teams who'd prefer to play at the home of the bigger club, making the exercise somewhat pointless unless it was stipulated that they weren't allowed to switch.

The last paragraph is a crock of - we simply don't have the pool of players to improve at GB level let alone at the lower levels. FYI I have attended 3 CC ties this year so I have put my hard-earned into the pockets Stanningley, Leigh East and Keighley. How many have you attended Gareth? - one I suspect - 70% of your entrance fee going into GH's pocket - a big pat on the back for that.

I doubt very much that had the game been at Workington that it would have been much less of a crowd.

Anyway you forgot the main point of the post. David started this thread off with regards how can we make the cup more interesting. Personally I do think it would be a little more even if Super League clubs were drawn away to NL oppossion rather than at home.

You only have to look at yesterdays game between Widnes and Wigan for that. At JJB that would have been a walk over for Wigan.

That's a very defensive and presumptious post there David.

I'll happily respond if you could explain your serious allegation that 70% of Friday's gate receipts will have gone into Gary Hetherington's pockets.

How about SL teams having to play a certain number of u21's players in the cup and only 1 overseas player - dunno, scrapping it wont be an option so....

Quite - my point about the receipts is this - the revenues are split once you take off the expenses and VAT.

If we said average amount paid to watch the game was £8/head taking into account concessions - I have assumed all corporate, bar takings and food sales go to Leeds. Not sure about the programme sales.

So my calcs are as follows:

3,576 @ £8 = 28,608
VAT (4,260)
Net 24,348
Expenses (4,000)
Net 20,348

GH's share 14,174 70%
WT share 10,174 30%

The expenses are a guess they could be even higher - one thing is for sure GH will not be out of pocket.

The Challenge Cup gives us national exposure - it is the only games of live RL on terrestrial in the year - and means a lot more casual viewers of the game than otherwise. Of course the lack of interest in the early rounds is disappointing but is inevitable given the improved standards in SL vis. a vis sides in the National Leagues (except the top NL1 sides). However the final is still a showpiece event that makes up for this.

Personally, I didn't go to the game on Friday I had other commitments but I did go to the away game against Worky a few years ago. I would be more motivated to go to these games if they were away because it is more of an occasion and its good to see some of the grounds in the NLs with lots of history.

David,

Do you understand about corporate identity?

Why do you say this money will be going into Gary Hetherington's pocket?

I agree Gareth.

Did you enjoy your first taste of the challenge cup this year?

There were rounds before that you know? Did you know?

I know. Why do you think it was my first taste of the cup? Mr Bywater made that same presumption.

A colloquial epression for funds going into the coffers of the Leeds Rugby.

..

st,helens academy u mean,,and they only won in the last seconds

Looking for some sense on this subject it, sadly, led me to a post from a Bulls fan. There you go.

Firstly, I agree entirely with Ferocious Aardvark.
I think a big step forward would be to include CC games in with your season ticket, maybe a 50% discount or some sort of incentive to get season ticket holders to the games, as I think the price on friday night put off a lot Leeds fans due to them thinking theyre not getting value for money against a team such as Workington.
It seems that games not on the season ticket attract signifcantly less fans than games that are. For example leeds getting only 10,500 for Wire in the playoffs last year compared to 17,500 a few weeks earlier.
My point being its not only the CC that attendances dip for, basically its any game not included on the season ticket. Which may also be one of the reasons for our pathetic turn outs for international games.