It is compulsory if you are writing an article on it. Otherwise we just get the same nonsense you write.

But fair enough, lets debate phil clarkes argument.

Everyone Phil Clarke feels 'something aint right' he doesnt really know what it is that 'aint right' but he wants people competent in finding out 'aint rightness' so they can fix, in yet to be determined ways, whatever it is that 'aint right'.

So lets go ahead and come up with solutions to 'aint right' and thank Phil Clarke for his bravery in speaking out against the 'aint rightness' of the current administration, and thank god we have someone like him, with all his years in the game, all his knowledge, all his insider information so he can look at the game, asses from it a high level, apply all his skills, knowledge and experience and give us the entire useful conclusion of 'well something aint right, i hope someone else does something' Where would we be without that cutting insight?

To be fair. There is no team outside SL that could be promoted on be anywhere near competitive without a reliance on overseas players, whether Toulouse or a heartland team.

You are a far more articulate writer than Phil Clarke, even though i would disagree with some of what you say.

What i would question is, I understand the argument that P+R helps the lower leagues, but the criticism has been that not enough of the 2nd and 3rd tier clubs in SL (and those promoted from the lower leagues to SL) are able to make the leap to the level of the Leeds, St's, Wigan, Wire, and id even throw in Hull FC and Les Catalans as sustainable clubs. Outside those, Bradford historically, and Salford with their new owner/stadium and Hudds who would still seem a little precarious with their reliance on Davy look the only ones actually looking likely to make that move, the rest just seem to be keeping their head above water and dont really seem to be even aiming for much more than that at the moment. What does P+R do to help the like of Hull KR, Cas, Wakefield, London, Widnes to move passed the aim of survival, and what does it do to help Bradford, Salford, and Hudds, move from consolidation to sustainable success?

for me a return to P+R wont effect the big clubs, and bar probably 3 or 4 wont actually effect the lower league clubs, but it will entrench the position of your Hull KR, Cas, Wakefield, London, Widnes and turn the likes of Bradford, Salford and Hudds from looking up towards success, to looking down at making sure they survive.

From the lower league position, P+R would look a lot more sensible if we were talking about the championships being a competitive league anyone could be promoted from, rather than what it is, which is a 14 team league where only 5 could realistically possibly be promoted with the facilities they have, 3 of those were and it damn near killed them, one of them embarrassed themselves in it.

Super league clubs are struggling to survive on bigger crowds than most championship clubs could possibly fit in their stadium. if Hull KR cant break even with attendances of 8k, how are Batley, Dewsbury, York, Barrow, Whitehaven, Keighley, Fev supposed to be sustainable when their stadiums dont even hold 8k?

I think thats small fry to sky. Sky a few years ago had no issue telling scottish football where to go when they rejected Sky's offer. How many subs did lose because of that. I would say more than 5000 but it didnt really matter to them.

One thing that baffles me is the suggestion that the youth development in Super League is struggling. The top sides all contain a high number of young English talents that look very promising. He uses the example that Hull haven't produced a half back - because that obviously proves that Super League is struggling!

I think the blame lies at the feet of both the rfl and individual clubs. The rfl's aim and strategy should be for SL to be earning enough income to have the club grant at the same level as salary cap and be aiming for 2million pound a year to counteract the NRL' salary cap increase. Secondly clubs need to stop being run like amateurs and come up with sensible business models that brings in more fans and corporate support. If that means a move of stadiums or more money on marketing or just employing ceo's with a clue so be it.

My own club came out with we need ten thousand to break even and have done nothing in the two years since that to see those extra 2-3000 attracted to games (stadium development aside).

I got sent [url=http://leaguechatter.blogspot.co.uk/this blog item today[/url which touches on similar issues regarding our evolution in the face of competetion from NRL and Union.

Pretty good Blog Mate.
Interesting read, I agree with much of what you said.
The NRL will take the Cream from the top of the Milk as they have in the last couple of years.
Some think that the NRL Clubs will develop English youth, that is not going to happen.
They have enough of their own youngsters coming through, they will look for bargain buys from established Test players.
The worry is that SL will become a feeder Comp to the NRL but only for the players that are already "built" and ready to go.

I don't think Hull KR should lose their license. I suspect the SL would like a presence in/near Manchester too, so Salford should stay.

That would mean Castleford, Wakefield and Widnes - although how you explain that to their fans I've no idea.

Just a thought really, but why should we strengthen the game in France when we clearly have financial problems in our game, 4 of the 5 clubs' you have mentioned for the chop bring substancial and much valued away support to SL games which would be lost in your madcap scheme while allowing 3 teams including the Catalan Dragons to bring nothing in the way of a financial contribution to the home club who unfortunately in these hard times need as much help financially as possible.

I can't take credit for it, I'm afraid. I'd just read it. Touches on some good ideas, though - there are men in the clubs of our game that could drive us forward, both in the case of established club chairmen like Leneghan, McManus and Hetherington who are forward thinkers with ambition, as well as the stinking rich like Moran, Koukash and the guy at Hull. These guys could give us more than they are currently, but are being stopped from doing so.

I agree with a salary cap in order to stop clubs bankrupting themselves, but I don't like it if it stops investment in the sport at a time when we obviously need it.

Why do you put Wakefield in the bottom category ?

Further progress is being made towards the new ground and they are still expecting to have it built for 2015.
The numbers of S/T holders and general attendances continue to increase (unlike most other clubs) and although they have stuttered on field over the past 3-4 weeks, this is no reason to hold an axe over their heads.

London appear to be in queer street and are clearly not sustainable as a stand alone club.
Salford, despite having a new wealthy backer have very little support - why does being near Manchester hols such credence.
Widnes, Warrington and Saints are not exactly a million miles from the promised land.
People thought that just because the BBC were relocating to Manchester, that having a top tier RL club close to the city would help with publicity/ growth of the game and yet the only publicity they've had concerns their recent financial perils - top stuff.
Even Huddersfield at the top of the league are struggling with crowd numbers.

Are you being serious with your comments over Salford?Yes we have a new wealthy backer but he only took over 1day before the season started and hasn't even had the chance to change the clubs fortunes yet, we still have near enough the same team we had at the start of the season after we sold all our best players. we've struggled a little this year following that and you wonder why crowds aren't turning up?. You just wait until later this year and next season then judge us as a club

Brilliant article offside monkey, and it really echoes my way of thinking as i posted earlier.

It depends on how it's sold. I'd have no trouble being able to pitch it as a better competition now worth [imore[/i money than before.

Clubs shouldn't be relying on visiting support, who will each bring just £20 once a year. They should be focusing on growing a home support that have a significantly greater lifetime value to the club.

If a club knows that it is going to have an empty "away end", that should be seen as an opportunity to appeal to a new, local audience.

Rely on them no, encourage them yes, even to the point of supplying free travel,

Really? So Leeds and St Helens should have dipped into their pocket for fans from London and Perpignan?

Alternatively, they could have done [url=http://www.therhinos.co.uk/news/20172.php#.UWmcHcoYmtgsomething like this[/url and appeal to fans who could actually turn into valuable long-term customers.

Hmmm... tough one....

As ever, pedantic posters pick on the small % of the idea least likely to actually work and not the actual point being made

Away support adds to the match experience, which in turn encourages home support, not rocket surgery as big Barrie would say, RL cannot afford to miss any opportunity to market itself

I'm not suggesting that fans shouldn't encourage visiting support, but I don't think that, in itself, is the issue. The "away support" argument most commonly falls on London, Catalans and any other expansion team.

Almost every week, there is a criticism on here that expansion teams don't bring away fans and as a result, that's why low crowds are expected. The successful clubs should, and do, see those games as an opportunity rather than an excuse to complain about the RFL / expansion / London / whoever else it's fashionable to blame. Above we have an example from Leeds and other clubs have done similar (Wigan have partnered with Heinz in the past). The clubs that are holding the league back seem to be sitting still, just hoping that they lose as little revenue as possible because they've got London or Catalans this week.

It isnt fans that should encourage away support, it is the clubs, even if it is just to target 1 match per season where the aim is to encourage a particular club to double its away following

3 seasons ago Leigh played Widnes at home on a sunday and comprehensibly beat them, we were then due to play them again at home the following thursday in the NRC , part of the sponsorship for that competition included 1,000 pounds to be spent marketing the game, Leigh used that money to provide 4 coachloads of free travel, Steve O Connor matched that spend and 400 Widnes fans came to the midweek match on free travel

Some of those fans might well have not travelled without that initiative, the attendances for both games were similar and a good atmosphere was the result , we did stuff them again

I'm not suggesting that it is the fan's responsibility. It is down to the clubs and, on the whole, I think that most clubs do that were feasible.

Initiatives like the one you describe are great, but how sustainable are they on a regular basis? I've seen clubs market to specific sections of fans for particular games in the past and on occasion, it has worked. However, pushing the boat out on marketing for people who, at best, are worth £20 to you in a year, isn't going to deliver a massive ROI.

The reality is that even the biggest clubs run on limited marketing budgets and as a result, they are pressured into delivering the biggest ROI possible. To a club like Leeds, a supporter in Leeds has a greater lifetime value than a fan of, for example, Huddersfield so it makes sense to market to the people of Leeds rather than the fans of Huddersfield.

And at the risk of repeating myself, I don't think that fixtures against Huddersfield are the biggest problem for Leeds or other clubs - the challenge comes from the London and Catalans games and in my view, it wouldn't surprise me if many clubs have the same view that is frequently expressed here - "London game = poor crowd because they don't bring any fans and there's nothing we can do about it".

The average away support being?

and to be fair the fact we haven't produced a halfback is not exactly new news, its been going on for over a decade

Paul cook?