Are you winking at me?

Is that so wrong?

Not at all.



I predict another attendance thread to pop up about 8 o'clock Friday night when someone claims there are only 15 fans at the Crusaders game. The official attendance will be announced as 1,743 and then someone else will claim that is a joke as there are clearly well over 5,000 at the game.

It may well be, but thats how they see it, most of them have said they'll spend the ticket money they save in the club shop and support this club.

I agree the game needs to expand and i would be happy to support it but sadly i don't trust the RFL and the way they operate, thats just how i see it, bitter and twisted well not yet but give it time

Why then, on your own forum, are you expressing your indifference as to how many people turn up to the CC game at BV, since you only care about Cas?

But how do we get that? Bottom up or top down?

Fast tracking expansionism? I for one think that is wrong! And IMO will result in a poorly managed, poorly financed and poorly supported entity (Celtic/Fulham-London Broncos-Quins/PSG/Gateshead). The only example that has proved otherwise is Le Cats. And I think that has a lot more to do with it being marketed in this country as a "rugby league holiday", which is why when teams have to travel twice in one year fans (on the whole) stay home once (more often than not at the start of the year, when theres less chance of belting sun!). You couldn't market this ideal in Wales, London or any other GB location.

The only way to build success is to grow it, so you have healthy home fans and no reliance on travelling fans. Which in my view comes from a healthy and "reactive" junior and amateur following. This has to be built from the bottom up, not top down ala current RFL strategies.
Teams should start off from NL2 (with a healthy amount of RFL assistance) and be grown over generations not 3 year cycles. Generations passing on their love of the game comes from a healthy product; we must ensure the survival of our heart or the organism will die!!

Sorry Fully but why is it fact, I don't agree. This is what the SL apologists say on the VT and I have never got on yet to say what these facts are.

The M62 corridor including Liverpool contains approx 16 million people. That is about the same as NSW and QLD combined. Yet no one thinks RL can't prosper in Oz. The entire population of wales is about a 5th of the M62 corridor and already has a form of Rugby and we pick the least populated part of it. So why so much effort for a bunch of sheep farmers?

Why when it includes two of the five biggest cities in the UK, has two ITV networks and two daily papers can RL not survive as a big fish in the north. Why do we need it, why can't we just be a big regional sport.

I simply don't buy this expansion rubbish. Nobody outside the M62 wants RL, that's the real fact. They have their own teams in their own sports and never asked for a SL team. This is because they don't care and they never will.

Make RL big where it's big, so big that regionally at least it can't be ignored. This alone will ensure our big events get national recognition. Stop pigging dreaming of a RL empire that will never be. Instead of trying to be America be Israel, there not big and flash but no one messes with them and everyone knows who they are.

I'm sick of this expansionist/franchise b*llocks, I just want to go back to supporting my team, just travelling the M62, France every now and then and maybe Wembley - London once in a lifetime - that I reckon is all 90% of fans have ever wanted IMHO.

Not that anyone ever bothered to ask them.

Strangely, Vastman, I agree with everything you've put in that post. I don't care if it's a national sport or not, I don't even care if it's shown live on TV, I too just want to follow my team whether good or bad.

That vastman is your best ever post

Years ago I was all for expansion and preaching RL to the wider audience. Ask me how I feel about it now... I really couldn't give a toss! RL has always been concentrated along the M62 corridor and to be quite honest, I don't care if it stays that way.

I don't give 2 hoots if that London rabble think we're all flat caps and whippets. Let them carry on watching their boring kick and clap and leave us simple folk to enjoy our own game.

I would love to see you face to face with steveo and eddie and put that case across, you make very good points that has never been mentioned before with the tv pundits. There is a case of clubs further a field but will never be the super league team unless someone has loads of money to risk.

To put further points on here look at the local clubs that have been around

stanley 1919
eastmoor 1873
shaw cross 1947
normy 1879

Well said vastman, at last something we agree on!!!
Perfectly sums up the situation.

Good points Vastman. For anyone who has been to Australia you will know that RL is not a national sport, it is regionalised primarily in 2 states. I was there in November when the Four Nations final was on. I travelled from Sydney to Melbourne that day and live coverage of the final was shown on network tv in Sydney. I got into Melbourne, switched on Channel 7 and was greeted by "Hey, Hey it's Saturday!". The final was only shown at around 2am on Fox Sports (subscription TV owned by the Murdochs). Remember that Melbourne has the Storm and hosted one of the Four Nations matches in that tournament. Yet Victorians only care about Aussie Rules. Look what happened to the Perth and Adelaide teams.

Expansion has mixed success in Australia (where I suspect it is more financially successful). If expansion doesn't always work in Australia why are the RFL so bloody minded to think that it will work here!!!!!!!!!!!!

From the heart

You mean like when certain fans claim they took 3,000 fans to a game thats official attendance was only 1,823???

As a Hull FC fan through and through I would like to add my support to Wildshot's comments and also clarify for all those who are obviously a bit unsure-I do not read that as a slur or attack on other clubs in the Super League!!It is simply a very well made point demonstrating that Wakefield have every right-in fact more right than some-to their place in the league!They regularly have very good attendances-they brought more fans to the KC than Castleford, Quins-of course!-Crusaders-again obviously!-and even Hudds last season which was very disappointing given how well they were doing at the time. I appreciate that away crowds is not necessarily a criteria for the SL however surely if clubs are being run more as a business the money brought in each week has it's value in this?!

I am not a believer in the franchise system anyway as I feel that our board-probably along with others-are far too complacent and sure of their place in the league that they don't feel the need to improve their teams. Again this is not me 'having a go' at other teams in the SL all of whom have varying degrees of right, IMO to be there, just a support for a heartland team who have an excellent community spirit and youth scheme and surely should not be kicked out of the league just on the basis of their ground?

Well said Vastman.

It's pointless asking Fully by the way - as my previous post on this thread demonstrates, he doesn't even agree with himself.

Top Post

ok, firstly, I suspect the '277' Salford fans at the hunsket game was in fact the number of season ticket holders who got in for free. I was on a coach of 10 salford fans who all paid cash and so I suspect we werent included in that. If you could have seen the staidum yesterday Id have said it was at least 50:50 if not....more salford fans than homes fans.

secondly, all this 'ive heard salford cant afford staidum' etc.....clutching at straws im afraid. We dont own it, so its not our finances that will be affected by a lack of tenants its the councils. We are getting the stadiums use at a cost 'less than the maintenance/upkeep of the Willows'.....and if we dont use the staidum (cos its too expensive) the council are left with an expensive, embrassing empty stadium on their hands.

PS - this isnt an attack on Wakey, I believe we should all stay up and it be 15/16 teams. I just hate how its made 'similar' clubs start attacking each other and sniping to try and make themselves feel better about their franchise chances

Agreed. Salford are a similar club to ours so I find it daft that a few fans feel the need to have a go. I don't even want you to leave The Willows, cracking little ground

Purely because rugby league is already established in both Castleford and Wakefield. What matters most to me is seeing Cas win in the cup game; the attendance is largely irrelevant to me, it's the result that count first and foremost. Put it this way, the amount of people in Cas and Wakefield, the derbies should be selling out every time so by preaching on a forum to "all fans to get out and turn up to Belle Vue" is a bit silly considering all fans who can attend will attend such is the nature of the game.

In Wales, it's a different matter. I do genuinely care about the long-term health of the game and although not proven in fact or statement, if the likes of Crusaders, Quins, Catalans do offer something to SL that strengthens the games financially and helps my side, the competition and ultimately the sport to grow then I'm not going to turn around and go on a witchhunt.

It seems that some people are choosing to stay away from Crusaders as a way of demonstrating their dissatisfaction with the expansion system. But is the expansionist policy anything to do with Crusaders? At the end of the day Crusaders have done nothing to Wakey in the grand scheme of things. Cas are at much as a threat as anyone but whilst some of my fellow fans don't care for those sides, I do genuinely believe we need successful sides.

I can appreciate some fans believe that the sport doesn't need to grow and it doesn't need to go outside the traditional heartlands and that's fine. But we don't have an endless list of benefactors to bankroll sides and sooner or later something HAS to change to improve the health of clubs, the health of the sport.

I'll do it for you, J.T

There you go - edited for accuracy.

That's fine and I'd be inclined to agree. I don't agree with the stick a club here, there and everywhere and hope. Expansionism needs to be done slowly and progressively. For instance, we really should be targetting the likes of Sheffield, Cumbria and the North East first and foremost.

However, if we want to see clubs posting profits, clubs without need for benefactors and a stronger, more popular SL competition we need to get the media on our side. They don't take much notice of RL because they are controlled by Southern based editors and RL simply doesn't offer the value that football or other sports do in the South.

I think a lot of people are apathetic towards the likes of Crusaders because they're struggling in the interim to post good crowds. However, take note of your own crowds 10 years ago - not much difference really. Crusaders need time to sow the roots and build their team. You cannot just expect 10000 people to walk up week in, week out immediately. Especially given several clubs in the heartlands aren't averaging that.

Let's turn this subject on its head: how does your vision of marketing the game in the heartlands encourage growth financially? Would you just be happy for clubs not to receive Sky income (of which is a major source for running clubs). Rewind to the early 90's. The game was in existence but Sky's investment revolutionised the sport and strengthened clubs. I'm no historian but from what I know, clubs really did struggle back in those days. Do you want to go back to those days?

I really would like to know how your vision for growth in the heartlands can benefit clubs, especially those in the lower leagues.

How childish. Expected nothing more from you, though, to be honest.