A very articulate post Jamie and I think you've pretty much nailed it in one

Thanks for the complimentary responses.

I guess thinking in football terms, you probably have similar numbers of teams in the Prem / Championship in London. Arsenal, Chelsea, palace, Fulham, Spurs, West Ham, QPR but then there are probably like 3m people or something daft in those areas.

I just think if RL teams like Leigh, Salford, Saints - any really could piggy back into football in the nearby big cities like Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, York, Nottingham, Birmingham, London, Bristol. If you put them on in those stadiums after the football people have already paid to watch (and travelled from surrounding areas to do so) then you would find at least some would maybe go back to the RL teams where they actually play.

I know RL isn't football, but if it was and there were 8 PL / Champ teams within 20 miles of each other but only 4m people in those areas, they'd all (bar one or two - Leeds most likely being the biggest) be struggling to get enough bums on seats to make them competitive.

In pure business analytics this kind of analysis works - sadly we are in the world of sport where the emotions attached to entertainment are very different almost tribal.

There is a reason why new clubs in any sport rarely work - because you need emotional attachment - that takes years. Just plonking a club in Sheffield would not work and hasn't worked - even in its brighter days they struggled to get 5k to a game.

They had a team in Gateshead - how long before it folded - 2 years - evidence suggests what Jamie is proposing simply will not work and I don't see what will change to make it work.

Rugby league is a sport followed by enthusiasts/families not by corporate/young men who are completely obsessed and will spend every penny to get a fix of soccer. If you are going to have a new club it has to be in an area where people understand its values and kids play it at school or there is an amateur structure to support it.

If we concentrate on 14 entities with 14 feeder clubs then you spread the population of the north of England across fewer entities so increase the chances of greater support. To make this sustainable you need 70k a week at the SL level and 3k a week at the feeder club games so approx. 90k a week across all 14 games played in a weekend. The population of the North of England is c15m - take 2m off for North East and other outlying areas that gives c13m of potential audience so RL needs to attract .7% to hit the 90k

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ssion=true great read and shows leneghan to be the list he is

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ssion=true great read and shows leneghan to be the list he is

no, it shows he knows Leeds have been running (ruining) the sport for years.

your a biased idiot though.

no, I'm just not a Whino fan.

GH has lost his grip of the RFL, and it will benefit the game.

I know it's feeding the troll (and a somewhat dim witted one at that) but can anyone give me any examples of how the game has been run in Leeds' benefit?
I'm looking for a little more than "Leeds have got away with blatant forward passes since at least 2002".

There aren't any just another thick jealous inbred craving attention.

I was hoping someone would finally uncover Hetherington's network of double agents across the game. We all know about the famous work over many years of Agent Meli but there must be others.

I'm far from thick, and I can assure you my lineage is pure. But use your clearly superior intellect to insult. It's funny.

I call them how i see them.
You have no evidence whatsoever about he BS you're spouting on here.
Going by that alone points to you being thick as mince.

probably not thick. just thinks he funny. just a saddo really

so Leneghan is lying?

fair enough, obviously he and the club OWNERS are all liars too and only GH is right...

it wasn't GH who called him a liar. it was Chalmers and EVERY other non sl club.

Those chairman are pretty irrelevant tbh - they are takers and contribute very little.

I would rather give the monies to the amateur clubs who run numerous sides and actual develop the raw talent - rather than the parasites in the championship.


Could I suggest you listen the whippets podcast with Rob Elstone - the position might actually make some sense

Isn't that the point? Every other NON SL club. The turkeys not voting for Christmas. There's a surprise!

Just on the article itself: don't you think that using an article with clear vested interest as some sort of yardstick to 'prove' something is a bit flawed? To take a couple random points from it: he says the NRL only has one governing body whilst failing to contextualise this by also pointing out that the NRL also only has one division. In other words the one governing body focuses on the top tier. That is what the new system is trying to bring in. If there were no championship sides there would be no need to have a separate governing body.

He also claims that Lenagan is claiming opinion as fact then goes on to do exactly the same. Does anyone on here actually believe the spin that the RFL is doing a good job? He mentions the increased TV deal yet fails to mention that the RFL undersold it by allowing Sky to get into a position where the could make a 'take it or leave it' deal knowing we didn't have any other options. Do you think Sky offered top dollar out of the goodness of their heart in that situation? That's before we even get to the debacle of the Stobart sponsorship!



I could take that article apart line by line but, in truth, so could anyone else with even a modicum of intelligence. The only people who would point to that article as having any semblance of balance or credibility are those with a vested interest or those who think that to keep doing the same thing whilst expecting a different result is the right way to go. And we all know what that is the definition of!

and you could also pull leneghan apart if you wished. the whole thing is a mess

The fact that you're putting it on Lenagan shows you've bought the spin. Do you think he could have done this without the other chairmen? McManus and Moran amongst others are prime movers in this initiative. Others too and, most crucially, with the full support of all the SL chairmen bar Hetherington. Let me ask you this: Had that conference gone ahead with GH at the table and no opposition whatsoever (remember, the ONLY opposition from SL is from him) would you still be calling it "a mess"? Even more interestingly, had the only opposition come from, say, Salford or Widnes and everyone else, including Leeds, had been fully on board would you be supporting them or would you be of the opinion that they were holding the game back?

yes. it's nothing g to do with what in think about GH. knowing a couple of lower league owners I know what leneghan said at the first meeting. he even put it in a letter. next thing he's changed everything and want to stop the money for lower league clubs. and that's wrong. they should get there fair share. they need it

how is it a "fair share"?
SL is a business, not a social charity.

If GH doesn't like it then he can begger off, SL IS RUGBY LEAGUE, not the blazers at the RFL.

Well fair enough if that's your view. I'm not going to argue against it as long as you're happy to have a semi pro competition somewhere down the line. Personally I'd like to see the game grow to it's full potential but each to their own, I suppose.

Could I just ask what you consider to be their 'fair share' and what this figure is based on? Are you, for example, basing it on percentage of income generated by these lower league clubs? I'm genuinely interested to know what you consider they deserve and why.

do they not deserve something?
all clubs were happy with the agreed share when the last deal was agreed. what has changed?

the owners want control away from GH and his chums

they also want to cut funding, from the sky pot, to all outside SL. despite agreeing it when the deal was sorted. that's wrong. it should be fairly distributed.