If we turn the clocks back to the 2 or 3 seasons prior to the Superleague era, is the game (at all levels) or...are individual clubs really in a better or worse position now compared to back then?

Are SKY and SL really the savior of our game? Having seen the debts which some clubs now seem to get themselves into in order to exist in SL, it really does beg the question.

Whilst I'm not going to paint a picture of the early 90's being all sweetness and light I don't recall clubs going into administration to the tune of hundreds of thousands on a seemingly regular basis.

So what are other peoples thoughts on this?

LEeds came very close to going bust as did Hull I think prior to SL. I don't think its the current system thats t blame for some of these clubs being run so badly.

Leeds and Hull of course are two of the biggest names in the game, but as big city teams they have amongst the highest potential for a support base and ultimately as a successful business.

However, it's the smaller and middle order teams that seem to be pushed the hardest to stretch beyond their means and reasonable finances that seem to suffer.

We (Huddersfield) are better off.

HTH

In competitive terms the game is quite clearly better off now, given that the previous era rarely saw more than one club win anything, purely on the basis of having enough money to fund a fully-professional team.

But as previous posters here have pointed out, clubs getting into a financial mess and going - or nearly going - bust is not something that has only been seen in the Super League era or the franchising era. So it's a tad difficult to see how those who attempt to link the two really believe their own selective ness of the evidence.

Warrington were at deaths door

Wigan are now playing in a state of the art stadium averaging 16,000 fans, we also have one of the best training facilities, one of the best youth setups, the best marketing team, the club is becoming profitable.

That is not fluke, it is the result of hard work, the club being run in the right way. That doesn't come from just being 'Wigan'.

This is all despite going backwards on the field for many years.

Our CLUB is much better but the TEAM isn't. I can only dream of what crowds we would have been getting in the early 90's in a stadium like this with great marketing etc.

Some clubs are better off... Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Hull FC, Huddersfield, Warrington..... some are not. Some are just average and will plod along, the RFL will continue to reward mediocrity. No surprise though to see the clubs which have improved and have new facilities are the ones with money behind them. Clearly the sky money alone does not make a club sustainable at this level like we hoped it would. If that was the case then we could have 14 teams all spending to the cap, an even competition and no worries.

You really dont seem to understand the way it was , yes W1g4n did buy the title and cup for several years , but they didnt have the money to susstain it , they were on the verge of going bust , yes the only club at that time that could financially compete with them was Leeds , and it shows how bad they were that it took them so long between titles

Has SL and SKY money made the game better ? , very hard to tell , the world and the way people find their entertainment has changed so much in the last 15/20 years it cannot be a conclusive answer , we have had no choice , just as other sports have had to change

Could we have done a better job of it ? yes , could we have done a worse job of it ? , yes as well

Will things improve in the next 15 years ? , no , we'll still have a few clubs dominating , a few more bouncing along making up the numbers , and then a dozen or so others surviving just

And we still wont have won a major International trophy

Bradford went bust in the pre-summer Golden era as well. I think the problem then was general lack of support rather than a tax bill and some unfortunate, albeit arguably avoidable, events.

Yes and some clubs especially - that said without the greed displayed over the duration of SL it could have been far far better for all the game and not just the few.

There are a few different topics that need to be separated here I suppose. Firstly that of the success of summer rugby, as opposed to winter rugby....and secondly that of the franchised SL compared to traditional league structures.

I personally think that Summer rugby has been the backbone of the success stories that have rejuvenated some teams. However, the pressures of a 'Superleague' and the requirements of a franchise system have been at the heart of the negative aspects of the current era.

Has summer rugby been a success? I really don't know.

I'd love to know how much money was in the game in the early 1990's compared to what there is in the game now. Does anyone have any stats on this to compare the t/o of rugby league clubs pre SL and post SL?

What about at International level? Once upon a time Great Britain could play Australia at Wembley and sell it out. No chance of that these days.

If we believe Eddy & Stevo the game is fitter, faster and more powerful than pre SL. Is it really?

I dunno. I'm kind of sick of debating it to be honest because at the end of the day most peoples views are centred around their own club.

The game is fitter, faster and more powerful than it was in 2006. 1996 is another era entirely.

Poor choice of words from me there. Agreed that it is definately fitter, faster and more powerful.

Has it improved skills? And by that I mean the skill of drawing defence, passing, moving etc. I don't think it has. I think the game has lost some of the shine since players became more athletic.

Overall it'd be difficult to tell - but Martin Offiah on twitter last season was absolutely adamant that players back then were earning a lot more money than they do now. He knows, because he's seen the contracts (I guess by virtue of having been a player himself, and now being a player agent negotiating the contracts).

Whether that was true at all clubs, or even between all players at the top clubs who were paying out more than they could sustain in player wages, it would be difficult to say without the disclose of facts & figures from the players involved - and let's face it, why should they be inclined to do so, and what right would we have to ask it of them?

The defences have improved dramatically in terms of being organised. I love watching old clips of Gregory and Edwards dropping the shoulder and chiming through the line, but could they do it so often now with less gaps to run through and less unfit props to take advantage of?

I think some of the ball handling of today is sometimes breathtaking, the way Warrington and Wigan move the ball can be lightening fast. BUT, I think some of the older players were much better at reading the game, they seemed to have a better 'RL brain'.

It takes us back to that old question... how good would the legends of the past be with the modern training and fitness programmes. Hanley was a freak but if he was playing now he could be bigger, stronger, fitter but still with his ability.

Interesting example - I would argue the opposite, that Hanley would be less effective (rather than more) in today's game.

He would, because the defence would be more structured.

That is why the likes of Slater and Tomkins are so special. To be able to cut through teams who are so well organised is just sensational. Slater would of had a field day back in the 80'.

Yes. I do.



Oh, at least a decade or so ...



So we were on the cusp of going from one club dominating the domestic game in the top flight to another doing so by virtue of financial collapse? Whereas what [ihas[/i happened is that (if you will) the trophies have been shared out rather more widely and Wigan have survived – see Odem's very good post on that – and other clubs have caught up; the playing field [ihas[/i been leveled out at least somewhat. We haven't gone from a situation of one club dominating to another doing so.



I'd largely agree with this. And there will be much about the question of whether the game is 'better' that will be subjective. Personally, I'd say that, by and large, it is better. I think more games where the outcome is not obvious is a help. I think there is increased – and increasing – intensity. Summer rugby has been good, in my opinion (see – I'm making it quite clear where I know I'm being subjective

), for a host of reasons, including better surfaces on which to play fast, running rugby. With the exception of mud wrestling, I don't want to see any of 'my' sports played in bogs.



And fair enough again with this. It's impossible to disagree.



Now on this, I'm rather less in agreement. First, because we simply don't know. So many things could happen – or not. But you see I also think that, in saying: "we'll still have a few clubs dominating" you're falling into a trap of not really acknowledging that "a few" is actually massive progress from where we were a decade or so ago. Perhaps that's also the way it happens in team sports universally? I wouldn't swear to it, but I cannot think, off the top of my head, of a team sport where there is not a situation of a certain group of 'elite' (if you will) clubs dominating for X period of time.



We weren't winning them by the pot load beforehand ...

One might also add that nutritional and training knowledge have developed and he might be even bigger and stronger now.

Better is bait subjective, obviously they are fitter and stronger as full time v part time, but in my opinion the game was a better game to watch years ago.

If you go back 25 + years we didn't have just a few dominating , we had different clubs winning things all the time , so is the game better now than 15 years ago ? , yes , better than 30 years ago ? , NO

So true we dont want to return to the dark days of 1 club domination , but we wont ever get to the way it once was which was better than now

Either way , it is what it is , and people will either choose to spend their money watching it or not

Its difficult to make a real comparison, as we are looking at semi-pros and full time pros and a winter v summer game. We all have our opinion, but unfortunately we are not the ones who can make a real difference to how the game is played. We are all, also, guilty of looking at things through rose tinted glasses and saying "things were better when I was young". As a 70 year old I'm as guilty as anyone else of this, but would much sooner see athletes (which is what the modern players are), playing tghe game on good, hard surfaces. Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

It's easy to claim SL is a roaring success comparing it to one of the worst periods in modern RL.

Surely if we hope to achieve anything we should be measuring ourselves against the time when British RL was at its finest (50's/60s)?

Let's see how [ithat [/iargument stacks up.

the game is almost unrecognisable from the one I started watching in the early 70s. Watching games like the 77 CC final is like watching a different game, the attacking lines are so deep and that the defences sit back which made for some fantastic attacking football. That does not detract from the speed and pressure of the modern game and defences in particular. There have of course been substantial rule changes and that is part of our game which hasnt been afraid to innovate and change one of the things which makes our TGG. The emphasis was on the challenge cup and I think the move to a GF format has been fantastic. The GF is arguably one of THE sporting fixtures in the UK now and sends a shiver down the spine every year.