Thats a bit unfair on Cabbie.

Mine are miles worse.

What is ridiculous? our club can't survive without a wealthy benefactor, therefore we are not charging enough, if our fans can't afford to attend then we are stuffed all round. Clubs with larger crowds can afford to charge less the Giants & Rovers can't. It is simple economics you can't survive by charging less for your product than it costs to produce. My whole argument is that we are doing fine for the amount we spend & but Leeds & Wigan we are not.

Ok then Bev red lets charge everyone who comes to the next game a grand each to get in then we'll be sorted and out of debt ridicolous isn't it

You're missing the other obvious option which is to spend what you earn. What do you think rovers' average attendance would be if they charged £48 to get in? Do you think it would generate more revenue than the current entrance fee?



REduce the salary cap I say. The players who can earn more else where will be leaving anyway and those that can't go to union or oz will still mostly be earning significantly more than those paying to watch them. The average salary in SL is around £70k - do you think the majority of players could earn £70k if they weren't pro rugby players.



Oay them what the game can afford

you were well and truly HAD if you paid £600 for two of you to see rod stewart.IMO

Ok I may not be putting my point well, what I wanted to put across is that some folk on here expect far to much from the limited resources available to us & the low price they are paying for the match day experiance. I am a fan of the game & the people who play & watch it but no amount of wishfull thinking can cover the fact that without rich patrons we would not have a club playing at this level, I am happy with that & just get frustrated with people expecting to get somthing for nothing. To me £24 for a game is reasonable, half of what I would pay for a meal out or a night in the pub. I would love an investor like the guy at salford to come in to the club & then we might have a reason to complain that the team was not perfoming but as it stands I think we get good value from what we can afford.

24quid is reasonable 48quid isn't

I can understand the argument you’re putting across but there is a big BUT that needs addressing. If all reports are correct and I believe NH has confirmed this. Until last year we were at full cap, last year and this we are approx. £100k below full cap, so let’s say one good (not exceptional) player down.

So with the exception of the year we finished 4th and to some extents even that year we have never really competed with the top clubs. If you look at our relative playing squad it certainly doesn’t look or feel like a club that is only one player down either. I think this is where the frustration lies with fans, we are told we are spending the same as say a wire or Leeds yet the product we see is miles away. If we had Roman Abramovich in charge we’d still be only able to spend £100k more so would he improve the situation other than being able to improve the infrastructure and employ a better back room staff.

I can see where JTP is coming from with reducing the cap, not sure on the stats but I think only one club makes a profit (leeds) so to stop clubs drowning maybe reduce the pay, but this would just reduce the product and the vicious circle would ensue. £70k is the average wage, but this is heavily tilted by every clubs Sam Tomkins type who will be on double plus that sum. The average player will be on £30 - £40k and for a career that effectively ends at 32 (and could be at the weekend) is not overly attractive.



As I said earlier footfall is not the be all and end all its only a gauge of how well the sport is performing and in the big picture gate receipts will not save any club or the sport on its own.



Hypothetically if RL was very cheap to watch for a year and say the total attendances were raised by 50% that would attract bigger sponsors, potentially bigger tv deals and potentially get people hooked. Don’t think it would work BTW as people would get used to not paying much but it would have more of a chance than fleecing the already strapped fans and forcing them away.

I fear this weekend (and ultimately the RLWC) can do more damage to our sport than good. We will have games on national tv and I would bet are reasonably poorly attended, little atmosphere and the impression of an amateur sport, we need to fill these games out one way or another to tempt supporters this worth watching.

There are things (within the rules!) that allow rich clubs to stretch the cap a bit further. Also if you can break into the top 4 regularly and win a couple of trophies, players will come for a bit less - breaking in initially is the tough bit and it'll be interesting to see how a cashed-up Salford get on. Then there's the advantage of being able to pay transfer (big) fees to get who you want rather than just who is available ooc. And, most importantly perhaps, pour money into your academy structure.

The wages issue from a player POV is interesting. I was discussing the other day, hypothetically, about the best path for a promising young player in the game, assuming the lad is bright as well. I'd say semi-pro has to be very attractive, unless you think you're going to be a really top player. You can start your 'real' career, that will hopefully last you a working lifetime, at the same time as everybody else, earn a few quid extra without relying on it too much and never feeling in any way like you need to start on the HGH to make sure you get another contract to support your family.

A lot of sense there, I am sure that I recall an interview with Sinfield were he implied that players at Leeds were playing for less than they could get at other clubs, I also recall Justin Morgan saying that Rovers as a new club into Super league (at the time) were having to pay over the odds to get players as there was no garantee that we would not get relagated or licence renewed. I would expect Wigan & Saints can hang onto their young promising players with the expectation of trophys to come, where we :- (a) dont as yet have that production line of talent (b) the few we have produced have not stayed Taylor is the prime example. Back in the late 60's I & lot of others turned our backs on the chance of a contract. as we could earn more working or could not risk a career that would provide for the rest of our lives. It is a dilema for the game, we have to find the right type of player but can't afford to pay what they are worth. Because of that we dont compete with NZ & Aus at international level & therefore dont get TV coverage, the Sothern hemesphere dont care about it & we loose out on sponsorship. I dont have an answer but I think that allowing Sandercock & the board time to get a sustainable system into place is our priority & whatever the performance on the field we will just have to take it good or bad & hope it comes right in the end.

What you also have to appreciate is its not just about what you are spending on the cap. The giants have also recently been spending uo to the cap - but the cap only covers players wages a lot of money is spent elsewhere. Clubs like wigan, Leeds etc have more money up be able to spend on marketing also training facilities, kit and staff. If wigan players have better facilities and better recovery and more physio etc they have an advantage. I'm sure I read somewhere that wigan had 13 members of staff associated with their first team alone. Clubs like kr and giants have to pay players more to entice then to come so are not getting the value for money other clubs may be.