Agree with you Snoopy. At the last home game (or was it the one before) I constantly saw both Sargy and Dixon having to go right over to the other side to get some ball play. We have never utilised our wingers correctly ever since I started watching Broncos in 1997. I think Dixon would be better at full back. I have seen him play there and I believe he had a good game. Both my nephews from Huddersfield really rate him and they both play prop for Underbank up there so they know what they are on about. Who is doing the defensive coaching because from what I have seen from home games so far, with a few exceptions, we can't tackle for toffee.

I'm talking about Rugby League Chris, do you think then that pre-Sky and the game going full time professional that it was in a good state? I admit the crowds were much better, and most clubs with semi-pro players would be able to cover costs from gate money and then club lotteries which brought in good money, some still continue but they can't compete now with the UK Lottery! but the state of the grounds in the North as I said had been allowed to just go into decay! So tell me what was the nonsense? IF ever Sky thought they could do without Rugby League how would the game survive? on money or none from such as Stobart and the small amount that Carnegie pay for the Challenge Cup virtually just to have a sponsor, remember the days when cigarette companies and the brewers pumped big money into the sport, who has replaced them?



Thanks Dave! I don't put my head in the sand, I just wish I had all the answers, it means a lot to me as it is the game I was brought up on and it upsets me to see the way it is being allowed to go and so many feel it is perfect?

Sport doesnt need Sky, sport was doing just fine before it turned up. All Sky's money has done is make it more expensive for people to watch.

SKY needs RL not the other way round (same can be said with a lot of sports) Sky pays the minimum it thinks it can get away with in order to buy the rights to a sport that it then think it can make money from. The whole notion that the sport needs a tv platform that uses it for its own benefit shows how warped the world has got.



See also -"our kit looks wrong without a sponsor"

Completely agree with you! sport didn't need Sky, perhaps the game may have been in a better state without Sky, but we will never know. But I am unsure if we could manage now any longer without them and They Know it! how could we find the income they put in? more so when Chairmen of some clubs are greedy even now and want less clubs in Super League thinking they will get more money, and the players hide behind they play too many games but with less clubs would get more money?



Sport is no longer in control! and they have to bow down to those that pay the golden dollar! I do not have a clue how would ever replace the money they contribute.

It's a long shot but if Al Jazeera's dalliance with RL in France proves a success and if Al Jazeera launch sports channels in the UK (not out of the question) and if then they're looking for some content & bid against Sky for RL then there'll be more of that lovely lolly. Or they outbid Sky for some of the PL packages and Sky are then forced to fill their schedule with more RL and pay more for it.

The Sky money is unfortunately vital & if it quickly went the game would be in crisis. It'd be nice to have some competition for the rights. Come on Qatar, make your move.

To those that say the glass is half full with a gate of 2,844, here's the list of all 19 Superleague home game attendances v Bradford........

4,524

9,166

7,000

8,233

4,063

5,259

4,605

3,651

3,910

3,987

3,879

4,491

3,793

4,011

2,534

3,112

3,152

4,253

2,844



86,467 fans at 19 games with an average of 4,550....the Glass Half Full Figure