Here’s a slightly different take on things....

Let’s say Sky don’t offer the golden egg anymore, Superleague doesn’t get the sort of TV money previously offered, gambling firms can’t sponsor anymore, so effectively the game struggles to stay full-time. What’s the big worry with that in reality?

The sport will still exist, the clubs will still exist, the history of the game will remain, we’ll all still be able to go and watch our teams, the players and facilities just won’t be as good long term. The players will likely have day jobs etc....

So, effectively, we’d be back to how the game looked in the 80’s in terms of financially - I loved my rugby league then (probably even more so as we didn’t have to soften the game), and I’m sure I’d love it again.

Obviously it’s better to have the Sky coverage and the full time athletes, but so what if we don’t. I’ll still go to Headingley every week to cheer on Leeds - and who knows, we might even get rid of the silly Rhinos name and return to the Loiners with our rightful hanging sheep badge....

I’m not sure it’s the disaster people think.

I note the cheap dig on another thread accusing me of getting my facts skewed. [i"Donny hasn't got his facts skewed again has he

"
[/i

To say glibly clubs are already playing each other too often may be you getting your facts wrong.

You say it's all about the money.......

In 2004 Leeds played Bradford and got a 21,000 crowd

Then Bradford played Leeds and got a 23.000 crowd

Then Leeds played Bradford and got a 21,000 crowd

Then Leeds played Bradford in the play off and got a 21,000 crowd

Then the clubs got a 65.000 crowd for the Grand final.

So where does that leave your silly argument clubs play each other too much??

especially when You say it's all about the money? How much money did 151,000 tickets sold generate ££££££money wise

Where does that leave your silly thoughtless argument when the same fixture played 5 times generated an average crowd of 30,000 a game and a shedload of money??

Seems it's your facts that are skewed

Only last year Hull KR got 12,000 against Hull.

Hull got 20,000 against Hull KR.

then a boring unwanted loop fixture occurred and Hull KR got another 10,000 crowd against Hull.......

Last time there was 14 clubs in SL your club played Warrington at home [uonly once[/u. For this match they got [u3,698 their worst crowd of the season?
[/u

Get your facts right before you start the snide comments.

Yeah, you did well there, selecting the 2 top sides in the comp, thet are 10 miles apart geographically.
Let them play in a 2 club league in some kind of West Yorkshire series



Do you actually know ANYONE who is in favour of the loop fixtures and I mean ANYONE ??

Have you looked at Salford v Huddersfield - I'll let you pull the numbers out and come back with just what they did for the game.

Of course the top two clubs will always generate decent crowds, no matter how often they play but, that isnt the same argument as the loop fixtures, is it ?

As for silly thoughtless arguments. Try expanding the game into new territory and then pulling the rug from under those that have invested millions, that sounds fantastic.

Completely killing the game in France sounds like another insightful idea

Of course it's the same argument.

Yes, fans will always turn out for derby games a third or even fourth time, Wigan.v.Saints.....Hull.v.HKR.....Cas.v.Wakefield....Leeds.v.Bradford.......Wire.v.Widnes and they aren't all "the top two clubs" are they??? All you have to do is look these things up and work to the REAL facts.



IPSO FACTO M62 RL fans do not want to see North American clubs replacing English clubs and breaking up the derby traditions and relegating their clubs for phoney teams.

Your club Wakefield go down and New York go up, how will that go down when Cas/Wakey is no longer on the fixture list??

Don't you think fans in Leeds AND Bradford want rid of Toronto and Bradford back in Superleague?? Challenge cup games are badly attended nowadays but guess what - Bradford played Leeds before 10,000 fans last season ...neither were "top" two clubs, Leeds were close to the foot of the Superleague and Bradford weren't even in it

Yet you want to call me "Crazy"? How is name calling and silly emojees any sort of an argument??

You tell me how we get rid of the loop fixtures without serious consequences

Over to you.......

Neither the RFL nor Superleague "tried to expand into new territory". Perez and Argylle were the ones who asked if they could try to expand the game to Canada and bring us Canadian Players and TV deals. It was Nigel Wood who said they could try it in the Championships.

At no point did TWP ever ask Superleague if they would mind TWP coming into Superleague, as it was they got promoted and SL did not stand in their way.

But it's clear that TWP haven't expanded anything at all apart from a massive debt and a court case against them to pay up more debts. Perez promised Canadian TV deals and Canadian players and McDermott was forced in an interview to admit they would not deliver either. But nobody pulled the rug on them did they they have the rest of this year and next year to find those players and TV deals.

You had a cheap dig at me, and you got your reward. Stop digging a big hole mate, join me in hoping Wakey don't end up below TWP in the final analysis.