On the topic of shirts and Sponsorship. Given we will have 27 games next year, each shown on TV, with an guestimated SKY average audience of 20k/250k, if we can't cover our shirts in sponsors, then there's something very wrong with that! At the high end of my guess, that's close to 7,000,000 people over the course of the season. Double down and get hoardings up for all our home games. It really shouldn't be difficult to sell.
I'm of the opinion that anything other than bring a mate and free kids with adults to the locals is about the length of the marketing for 2024. Getting spanked isn't going to bring anyone back.

Speaking of DELUDED. Taken from the clubs Twitter Feed....

....was there a Hockey section?

I think Hughes' comments immediately post the Toulouse game are illustrative of his broader ambitions and thinking;

"I just hope next season we get more fans, more support seeing the big games and the big teams".

"HOPE" springs eternal in the canyons of Hughes' brain. I believe next season he is bringing his neighbours to help swell the crowd.

Back to your o/p DC.

Our glorious RFL CEO says, rightly, that we are in the entertainment business. But that doesn't need to be comedy all the time. Fans of other sports are splitting their sides over this new "system" just when their stitches were beginning to hold after the hilarity of us re-introducing the farce of our scrum after a forced but successful ditching during the height of Covid.

Delusional maybe, misguided definitely, plain 4 King idiot quite possibly.

There is another explanation but not worth a ban from this FORUM for expounding it.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum: Tragedy Tomorrow, Comedy Tonight!

The system wasn't working as it was. The grading system rewards the club's that can sustain a decent product. I have no problem with it. As far as supporters of other sports laughing at Rugby League, let them. Their opinion is irrelevant.

Not sure you are correct Curtism. What do you consider a decent product? Are half of SL reaching that level? I would suggest not. The grading process would at the very least is arbitrary, looking at 3 years only favours under performing SL teams. You could argue that 5 or 10 years would be a better metric.

There are a number of irrelevant metrics whilst some important omissions if this process is to have any credibility.

Attendance growth at women's football has certainly been down to the national team. Sadly, our national Rugby team plays in half empty stadiums which tends to suggest teams in the North are not able to expand the supporter base much.

Most people that try a new sport, tend to have some sort of sports watching history so if they are all laughing at us, that view may well be relevant in trying to grow crowds.

Still maybe full house signs will be put up at Leeds on Saturday but that is still only 19,000.

I honestly think that the 7 Grade A Clubs deliver the best version in the current climate. As more clubs reach Grade A the sport as a whole will benefit.

I don't believe promotion and relegation is right for rugby league in this country. I believe franchising is.

Interesting, Curtism, (good evening, hope you are well?) that you think the only teams that present the best face of RL in this country are the exact same seven that IMG picked as Grade "A"s. Are you a bot?

Save for KR's lickle 'ollidy a few seasons back, those seven have feasted at the top table for years.

Has the game grown?

Morning
No the game hasn't grown, but one could argue a number of factors for that. Now that clubs have a clear(ish) roadmap to teach Superleague that isn't entirely dependent on survival, they can invest in infrastructure etc to make Rugby League more appealing.