Great post printer and correct in many ways but remember Leeds Rhinos means more to some than others and last Fridays defeat was unnaceptable and a disgrace as was the coaches comment that he was happy for Jimmy

Saying he's happy afterwards for Jimmy isn't a disgrace, it's no different to the players or coaches shaking hands after the game. You go into contest but you say your congratulations and well dones after the match and praise your opposition with a bit of class.

Is it truly any different to us fans giving the likes of Lauitiiti a great reception when he returned to Headingley for another club and even be happy for him to play well. What if McDermott came out and said he wanted the fans to boo and heckle Ali throughout the match because he's the opposition now?

You still don't get it - it is not about winning or losing it is about the downward trend of standards on the field. That is not just Leeds that is the league as a whole. The best players have either gone down under or moved to another code. We can no longer attract quality NRL players - that is evident on the field.

Far more worrying is the drop in participation at junior level - without the kids the game has no future. They look up to the elite level - Leeds being the biggest club in the area - and what do they see? Many more games like the Bradford and Wakefield games than the Wigan and Castleford ones.

The directors at Leeds are the best in the league at running a rugby club, do they always make the correct decisions - unlikely, nobody is right all the time. People pay good money to watch RL and if they are served up garbage like they have beeb on several occasions this year where do you suppose they look for an explanation?

What? Nobody thinks that comment is a disgrace. It's good sportsmanship at the best of times, but given their history it's even more understandable.

The difference between now & the 80s when I first started to support Leeds is that then our expectations were lower.
I didn't expect us to beat Wigan in 94 so was able to thoroughly enjoy the day but I did hope for better in 95 so was more disappointed with not just the result but how we played.
I didn't think that we would beat the Bulls in 2004 so was absolutely delighted when we did.
I did expect us to beat them in 2005 even more so at half time so that defeat was hard to take even more so when we learned the extent to which they'd broken the salary cap to cheat their way to victory.
In our other Grand Final victories I went more in hope than expectation & in nearly all cases the team exceeded my wildest dreams.
Now I see a team that relies too much on individual pieces of brilliance rather than systems & structures designed to lead to wins.
Sadly, some of our previous matchwinners are now in decline & this merely exposes our lack of structure.
I want to see the best of both world's similar to the way in which the Melbourne Storm carried all before them, they too are now seeing the decline in the impact of their major players (& salary earners).

Wrong Dave you say nobody thinks it was a disgrace that Mac was happy for Jimmy because rightly or wrongly i do , Yes you shake hands and congratulate the victor thats sportsmanship , but to say you are happy for him when 15,000 of your supporters have gone home dissapointed i think it is best to maybe keep quiet .

I have played alot of sport against mates and when i have lost i have shaken hands and congratulated them but certainly never been happy for them

spot on david. the cas game was brilliant, as was the wigan game at MM. others have been ok but most have been poor

Jesus H, if Southstander.com had existed in 95 this is what the heads of several posters would have looked like.....




95, now there was a disgraceful and gutless collective worth getting upset about as a fan. In-fighting and arguing about Super League loyalty contracts before a cup final capitulation (according to Alan Tait's autobiography).

One flaw with this ignore feature is that I can see what they've put when others quote it in their post.

Whilst what Sal wrote has a good point it went quite a bit off tangent to what I was writing about with his focus on junior levels and players to NRL.

He's trying to lay a large portion of blame on games like the one Leeds dished up on Friday as being one of the reasons the game can't attract NRL players or junior interest levels when most reasoned posters will realise their is a ton of much more serious and key reasons than Leeds and Bradford served up a knock-on-athon.

And whilst it sounds terribly noble and committed to dish out the "we're angry about poor performances because how it might effect the game in the long run" excuse. I think it's quite easy to see through that and the reality is (barring one or two) that the anger is simply down to spending £20-odd which they could've spent in the pub in the dry watching the Sky game instead......nothing at all to do with this heroic 'won't someone please think of the sports future' line. That's why most of the posts immediately after a game like Friday contain the classic "my hard earned cash" line.....yet I've seen none existent concern for what the juniors might've thought whilst watching those poor performances.

The last figures I saw showed junior participation increasing, but even if it's not it's got nothing to do with how Leeds play. Most of the kids playing RL in Leeds don't watch Leeds and many have only been to Headingley to play at half time.

There are many reasons why kids don't participate in RL, some within RL's control some not. The increase in single parent families and the increase in weekend and evening working means more parents either can't or don't want to give up the time to take their child to training or for a game. There are far more demands on people's time and much more competition than there used to be. Money is also an issue for some families.
Then there's the often disgraceful, aggressive and intimidating atmosphere at far too many amateur clubs. Add in egotistical, idiotic coaches and you get kids actively turned away from the sport.
But it's not to do with how Leeds are playing.

The point I am trying to make is this the game is lacking finance - as a result it cannot attract the quality of player that it once did especially those from the NRL. The chances of seeing players of the calibre of Lyon, Buderus, Furner etc in SL are slim to none in the foreseeable future. Most would agree the standard and spectacle on the field had diminished over the past few years - mostly due to the quality of its participants and its coaches. SL clubs have already suggested they cannot afford to fund reserve grade teams - does that sound like a sport in rude health?

The elite game drives interest in the sport - it is the pinnacle of the game in the UK, its showcase. Having a situation where good games are rarity cannot be healthy for the sport. It isn't about money for me - I am a season ticket holder so the £20 argument is a diversion on your part. Attendances at Leeds for the last six games are down on their counterparts from last season a couple are down by >2,000. What does that say - in an entertainment business people want value for money and perhaps what they see on the field doesn't represent that i.e. we all agree form has been poor since April this is starting to be reflected in attendances. Despite being one of the most successful clubs in RL season ticket sales at Leeds are reducing annually why is that?

To move this on Leedsrugby sees a drop in revenue and profitability, what is likely to happen? Leeds are to instigate investment in marketing to recover lost ground or they will tighten their belts further, that will impact the quality on the field.

A vibrant elite game will help participation - the life blood of the game. The world cup was brilliant that should have impacted participation positively - too early to tell, Sport England will no doubt publish some accurate figures. Bradford's demise has impacted participation in the area, clubs like Dudley Hill and West Bowling have struggled to attract youngsters.

Completely agree with the last paragraph - both my boys played junior and open age rugby. The behaviour of the parents especially the women was sickening. Their abuse of their own kids, other kids, each other and especially referees was shameful for what is supposed to be a family sport.

Vibrant clubs like Stanningley have senior players closely associated to the club, in their case JJB. East Leeds have Danny McGuire, Kippax have Andy Lynch - it may be a coincidence that participation are higher where links are closer to the elite side. Kids look up to these players as role models what happens when the kids view these players in a different light?

Fair points. I also agree with your earlier point about the lack of finance in SL being a big problem. Our game has been sold too cheaply IMO culminating in the Stobart nonsense. When the NRL upped their cap and the Union product improved it was on the cards that SL would not only lose valuable sources of talent but that these streams would be reversed and our home made stars would be targeted from both Union and NRL.

IMO our game needs star players and there should have been some inducement for our top clubs to attract star signings. Not only would these stars help attract extra sponsorship but benefits would filter down to those clubs would could not afford to sign international stars. I get the feeling that our game is being run to suit the lowest common denominator which always results in leveling down and not up.

This isn't aimed at those unfortunates who've got the entire family to cater for, but is £20-odd quid really as exorbitant as some posters make out? I'd be happy to pay £30 if it resulted in a proportionate rise in the cap. After all, what does £20 buy these days in any walk of life? Such a jump would represent a big % increase and would probably price some out of season tickets. But to my mind, the dependency on season tickets is harming the game. All it results in is a creeping apathy within the game where those running clubs know they're able to sell what are likely to be poor quality games against mediocre opposition. Remove that crutch and it'd give the whole system a kick up the arris. Of course, the counter-argument would be, as always, that the game cannot afford to take this risk (and it is a risk) but at present the game's stagnating and large sections of the public recognise this. I think Sal's prognosis of decreasing crowds is probably correct and intuitively think that the club can better turn this around while the fanbase remains at c 14k than it will be should it drop to, say 10k.

I think your first line actually answers your question. Rugby League, is and for a long time has been, a family game. Therefore many people do go as families. Whether that is husband and wife, father and son, father and daughter, or even three generations at a time.

Looking at that for a family it is a massively exorbitant amount for 80 minutes of rugby. A price that you can actually get tickets for finals for, never mind normal league games. At £30 a ticket you wouldn't even get half the attendances we do now I would wager.

If that's what you mean by ''family game'', then football is too. This isn't the 1980's.

But Football wasn't being discussed.

Agree wholeheartedly about the family thing, which is why I flagged it. And the kids are the future of our game. Now I recognise that my solution will never be implemented, but if it was it shouldn't be beyond the bounds to increase adult prices while dropping those for kids = no net increase to families.

No, but I don't think Adults going as a couple or single would also pay the increase you mentioned. It is too much for 80 minutes of rugby. Football was and is overpriced, although it has realised it's errors and across the board in a lot of cases have had to reduce prices to bring supporters back.

Having a point where it is cheaper to go watch a final of Rugby League than it is to watch an half @rs3d league game, would be a disaster in my opinion.

Why would kids look on the players in a different light just because of a loss to Bradford. As it happens, my 3 year old nephew was at the game and sat with us on Friday and he loved it other than the result. He wasn't worried about compeltion rates or attacking structures, what he saw was a close game that swung from looking like we were going to lose, then looked like we were going to sneak a win and then blew it. He got to see his favourite players, Zak Hardaker and Rob Burrow make a couple of nice runs that got him excited. There was a decent crowd and a decent atmosphere and he got to see Ronnie. I think you're over estimating the understanding that a kid has of what goes on at a game. I'd say after Friday (incomprehensible as it may be to us as adults) that he is more likely to want to attend games than less.

Fair enough and you're probably right about folk not paying it. Without the extra being spent on the team, why would they? Can't comment on football as my interest there is zero but if you look towards the top union sides - the ones where our poached players tend to end up - then their prices are a lot higher than ours. For a spectacle that is, in my view, inferior.

I can understand why clubs can't afford to run a reserve team. We currently have a squad of 25 plus any Acadmey players that make the step up. To have a reserve team you would realistically need an additional 10 players as a minimum, which would probably add in the region of £250k to the wage bill. It was OK in the past where the players were part time and therefore the running costs were much less but it just doesn't stack up financially now.

Also, I may be mistaken, but the NRL teams don't have a reserve teams as such do they? Don't any players not selected go to a form of feeder club in the NSW / Queensland comps? I'm sure that in the NRL games I've seen there have been comments about part timers being called up to first grade during a bad spell with injuries or losing a lot of players during the rep period. I don't see that beoing held up as an example of the NRL being in poor health.

I don't have any stats to back this up but I think you see proportionately far more women/kids/families at RL games than at football. I think it is generally seen as more "family friendly" than football.

I agree, I think links with the elite side are important for amateur clubs to increase/retain participation. As you say the kids look up to the top players and to have some link with them is what really gets the kids excited. Just playing a half time game at Headingley is a massive deal for a lot of kids! But I don't think the performances of the team has much effect on the kids because they don't understand it yet. I'd agree that the performances, especially at home, has an effect on the parents though.
Whilst on the links with amateur clubs, it frequently annoys me how little the pro & semi clubs do in that regard. Even clubs like Leeds, I think, could do an awful lot more. Some individual players do a lot but clubs as a whole I think are pretty poor in this respect. I think they vastly underestimate the effect of just a couple of players turning up and passing a ball around with kids for half an hour has on those kids.

Agree entirely with your first paragraph. It's something that both angers and confounds me at the same time. It turns so many kids and adults away from our sport.

Isn't the Holden cup competition in Australia for the under 23s from the NRL clubs?