That'll be a first!!

Is it really necessary for the forum moderators to stand up for each other. I think you should get out a little more or away from your computers because if you did you would of both heard the same report on the radio. I know you are obsessed with the protection of the current board however if you actually read what I posted you will see that they were never mentioned but why let that get in your way of trying to put me down but once again you just look petty and insecure. I would say better luck next time but please choose your retorts more carefully or people could think you are getting a little obsessive.

I expect the usual suspects will jump to your cause despite the fact that what I posted is not the slightest bit derogative towards those in charge.

Ha, I hardly ever agree with El Rey and both Wildthing and Kinley have picked me up on a few things recently......
But that doesn't mean we don't all disagree with you.

Some might jump on you too quick now but after so many critical posts and unrelenting negativity you are going to have to get used to it. If you want to be a lone voice you'll need to man up.

You've made an impression on people. You won't change that with one post.

If you gave alternatives rather than just saying negative things about what is actually happening you might find people agreeing with you.
Nobody enjoys the "we're all doomed" thing whether you are right or wrong. You might as well stand outside Belle Vue with a sandwich board saying the world will end.

Apologies when I read it back I see what I did, they have 39 players on the books with 17 Full timers signed up for the 2014 season, but even that would only be 17K a season if you take the full 300K so seems very strange then.

I post critical because I felt it was needed because some on here are getting a little carried away in their glorification of the current board whilst the evidence suggested it was not justified. I said I would give them credit when it was due and could be verified hence my post regarding Moore.
When I see very tangible proof they are pushing the club forward then I will give them the support they would be due. I must however, wait until I can ascertain what their plan is and what team they are able to put out on the field. I am still to be convinced that Kirmond will not be sold but once again time will tell.
I have noticed that our current chief executive is somewhat conspicuous by her absence. I have not noticed any positives that can be attributed to her nor have I seen any press releases about the club attributed to her.
With regards your fellow moderators believe me they do not cause me the slightest inconvenience and are quite welcome to keep trying.

Oh i get out, in fact i'm going to the meeting next week.

May even ask MC a question, face to face, am i not so brave

Well done at least you read my post which makes a change rather than assuming what I write is negative. I note that you do not answer my question regarding KH so I presume you have no idea what contribution she has made.

I feel you prove my point if the only time you go out is to a Wakefield Trinity related event the winter months must drag but it does explain your interest in computers. I doubt you will be able to ask a question face to face but you may be able to write one on a piece of paper unless of course they remember to bring a microphone along with them.

I suppose I had better make the post subject related because I don't want to be accused by one of the moderators of deviating from the thread so why don't you ask him "if he thinks that London, should they go into administration will be demoted to Championship 1" I know not a good question but thread related and you never know I may be at the meeting to hear the answer.

When is Al getting banned of here?

I can't see Feath being an option, the RFL have never come across as liking two SL clubs in the WF postcode so doubt they would be up for three!

I think it makes it look like a very poorly supported sport too!

As does a half empty wembley for a double header involving allegedly three of the best teams in the world.

Lets be honest. The tragic week end was first introduced to take the game to the public hopefully in increased numbers. That hasn't worked.
When first introduced their was no leaders shield and no promotion or relegation. It must be a level playing field, and nothing other than playing each other home and away should effect relegation.
We are often told that the players would prefer to play less games in a season, and because the SL have been allowed to become the b all and end all of our sport that's the outcome.
We only have two events that the teams can get involved in, and a sponsor for the SL can not be found.
Forget, scrap the weekend if Promotion and relegations going to play a part in the future make up of RL.

65000 isn't half empty Kinley.
Having said that there was a mass exodus just before HT in the Aus Fiji game.
In hindsight, they should have put the Aus game on first.

Don't think it takes hindsight its just plain common sense to run with that game first.

Don't think the league will pull the plug on London.
Don't London have a decent junior network going now and this will be put forward to the RFL.
London will probably looking for franchising again to develop these emerging juniors without the threat of relegation.
If this does happen, maybe a club like Wake can keep an eye on how things develop at London.
It's a big step to do what London have done but they weren't getting where they wanted to be with imports, so maybe they are looking to use the franchise system as it should be used.
Just my opinion.

Put those too fixtures on at RU in a double header and you couldn't find a stadium big enough to take the capacity.
We are where we are!

To put it into context:
73,631 - Great Britain vs Australia, Wembley 1992
70,204 - Australia vs England, SCG 1932
70,174 - Australia vs Great Britain, SCG 1962
68,777 - Australia vs Great Britain, SCG 1958
68,720 - Australia vs Great Britain, SCG 1958
67,748 - Australia vs France, SCG 1955
67,577 - Australia vs Great Britain, SCG 1954
67,545 - England vs New Zealand/Australia vs Fiji, Wembley 2013 (this weekends double header)
67,009 - Australia vs France, SCG 1951
66,540 - England vs Australia, Wembley 1995

We can and should do better.

I can't see any reason to complain - 65k people at Wembley and at its peak, 2.3m people watching on TV, and that's only in the UK; add to that, a lot of positive media off the back of what was an outstanding game.

Over to you RFL - make of it what you will.

A great game with plenty of give away tickets. The RFL now have to hope for a great final, and make the most of it.
The problem I think is its not an event, that attracts the outside support.
Any event at twickers would be sold out weeks in advance and the products no better than what RL has to offer.

67,545 x 2 = 135,090!!! wow wembley has got bigger! when did they put the extension on?? why do people always exaggerate a small negative? yes they could do better but on the whole this world cup has been fantastically supported in places where RL is barely played!! The RFL is pretty hopeless at running the game in this country but the organisers of this tournament have done a amazing job at getting the crowds in!

You are Carol Vorderman and i claim my £5.00.
The point i was making was that it was nowhere near full and that this was for a double header and both games were semi finals so of some significance.
Without treading on Agent XIII's territory and being unnecessarily negative (oh no this is about RL not Michael Carter!!) i think that the attendance was poor.
On another thread i posted a number of attendances theat were comparable or better (one included france for god's sake!!) and all were for single games, so i don't think i was being unfair.
If those two games were being played on the same basis in RU you would not be able to get hold of tickets for love nor money.
In recent memory GB have commanded bigger attendances for games against the aussies at the old Wembley so why was this one attended by so many less?
I think a lot of people have been turned off from our international game in recent years due to the messing about by the rfl, the break up of the GB team in favour of the "home nations" and IMO the sum of those parts is less than the whole that was GB.
As for whether it was a success, that will have to be assessed when the figures have been added up, because the rfl have a proven track record at selling something for nothing.

I see what you are getting at but to put it into greater context:
Sydney is Australia's biggest conurbation where rugby league is the number one winter sport. None of those games at the SCG are in the last fifty years and were played at a time when international rugby league was more competitive - I believe France won both of those test series. It was also at a time when Australia probably felt more isolated as a country and welcomed any international opposition. Today they are spoiled with the best quality club competition and state of origin series so with Australia being so dominant, international rugby doesn't have the same interest and wouldn't get anywhere near those crowds today. They even played the 2008 final in Brisbane because they didn't think they would get as big a crowd in Sydney.
London is England's biggest conurbation where rugby league is barely on the radar and the fan base is generally 200 miles away. The 1992 match at the top of your list was a one off world cup final off the back of some heavy promotion in London and two closely fought ashes series, where arguably GB should have won the 1990 series.
The nearest comparison I would say is at the bottom of your list which was the centenary world cup final. This was the last winter season and everything stopped for a month while the tournament was played.

I think we probably could do better but it in all fairness it was a damn fine effort.

What, do better than the best attendance for 21 years? Wow, there is nothing like setting high targets.

Chile

When looking at historical precedents, it's also probably worth considering that we're currently in the depths of a recession so deep that many working class people are making a choice between feeding themselves or their children; bear in mind also when making comparisons to the duller code, that the demographic of that brand of 'rugby' tends to be largely made up of people to whom a recession is pretty meaningless, whereas TGG is traditionally supported by those very same working class folk who are being squeezed from all sides, and not in a good way. A trip to Wembley for the majority of heartland RL supporters, cheap tickets or no, entails transport and accommodation, so it's in no way a cheap weekender.

Given all of the macro-factors, I think the attendances at this World Cup have been creditable; what I have less confidence about is the ability of the old duffers at Red Hall to carry that positive momentum forward - if they've got any sense, they'll retain the services of whomever was in charge and give him a marketing role at the RFL.

Excellent point re:social strata from which RU 'supporters 'come .
Many who attend RU internationals never attend other RU matches.
It is a form of' social climbing ' and in to say I was at 'Twickers.'
I have relatives who do not know one of a rugby ball from another, but regularly attend RU internationals.
They and their friends also look down on RL despite the fact they know nothing about it.
I have tried to engage them in intelligent conversations re. the two codes, as I actually watch both, but the ignorance is amazing /alarming.
Now I avoid them,even at funerals and weddings.











.