Maybe he was going there to negotiate his release from his contract so he can go back home and play for Parramatta

Most semi finals are played in front of no crowds aren't they?

This could be a blessing for clubs like Huddersfield. Be like playing every game at home.

If crowds are not allowed at games at all this year I think that the GF and Challenge Cup would probably not take place. The respective finals may be two of the sports biggest money makers but without fans in attendance both would turn into loss makers. With the huge financial strain we already face it would be daft to hold the finals without any crowds and knowingly create further losses. We would name the league leaders champions and void the cup for this year.

If as you say crowds were to be allowed from the start of October then we may even see the hypothetical Old Trafford Challenge Cup final on the original GF date and mid November GF to allow both competitions to take place (prior to contracts ending on Nov 30th). Either that or we get a shorter league campaign to end as planned on October 10th at OT with crowds present for just playoff (top 4) semi finals and the GF (with the cup not taking place).

you could play the finals in any stadium not large ones if theres no crowds and then pay hardly anything to host it

If October the first is the date from when crowds can be let in then surely they’ll push back the grand final for at least a month to 6 weeks to try and offset some of the damage.

Watching those few NRL games that got played behind closed doors they where awful and frankly I think the sport will lose more fans than it gains but that’s just me

Regardless of the size of stadium used it would still cost some money to hold (meaning a loss making game) and when there is a viable alternative method for awarding a team the title of champions (i.e the league leaders) without making any loss, then not holding a GF would be preferable if no crowd could attend it. The Challenge Cup sadly is no longer such a priority in the eyes of much of RL's fanbase, I attend all of our cup games but most fans don't bother with it. It is likely that even fewer people than do so now would care to watch the cup games in the knowledge that should their team get to the final that they wouldn't be able to enjoy their day at Wembley. Imagine the frustration for fans of clubs like Salford or Wakefield who having never seen their team at Wembley saw them finally make the final only for them to not be able to attend it and to rub salt into the wound for their club's big moment (I know Salford made the GF last year but that wasn't on BBC with a captive audience) to be played out at an empty LSV. I know these are extraordinary times but it would just make the sport look third rate. It would be better not to hold the comp if we couldn't have fans in attendance at a big showpiece final.

The finals are the occasions they are in a large part due to the build up and traditions that go with them and the atmosphere generated by an enthusiastic crowd at the event. In the hypothetical (and possible) scenario where spectators cannot attend then the latter is absent straight away and there is no need for the former as this in the main is not broadcast so would not be witnessed by anyone. The finals would be a lesser spectacle than a standard league game.

Where did you see the report NK?
Could you send a link?

Personally I don’t know how people can determine dates so far in advance. If this does turn out to be true then professional rugby in the uk may not survive

What makes you think Parramatta want him?


Oh, right. Nothing.

wouldnt cost so much as there would be no need for vendors, stewards etc so minimal cost, could hold it at odsal as the RFL own it still dont they so would cost them nothing to rent

First club that sprung to mind when I was typing

I think there was some talk games could be played at the small Man City stadium used for their ladies team, with all teams being based in Manchester. The Grand Final and Challenge cup would be loss makers if you needed to pay to host them at OT/Wembley but if it came down to it and there couldn’t be a crowd, there would seem little point. If fans can’t be there then all you really need are some changing rooms and a field.

exactly pal

I wonder if you could maybe have a situation where fans are allowed in but only X amount of seats could be filled.

Maybe take the biggest Lancashire stadium in Super League (Wigan) and have all the Lancashire clubs play their home games there with a max crowd of 6-7k. Do the same with the Yorkshire clubs at Huddersfield. Maybe that could preserve some income. I know the co-operation of football clubs might be an issue but maybe there could be a bit of community spirit involved.

See what you’re saying but does that not defeat the object? Fans travelling from other areas into other areas in their thousands?

I don’t know what the answer is, I’d be amazed if anyone at the RFL or SL did either and that’s not a detrimental comment to them either, but I don’t think this is it.

My own opinion is to resume only when it’s safe to do so at your own stadia, with fans, otherwise for me the whole point of sport is gone.

Personally I don’t see crowds the size mainstream sport attract, being allowed in the UK this side of Christmas. I honestly think football is preparing for that very scenario and I reckon we get used to it.

The effects of covid19 in terms of social distancing measures, will be in our lives until at least 2021 imo.

Quite frankly I couldn’t care less if I didn’t see a game of football or rugby this year. I’ve lost all interest following COVID. I’m not saying others should be the same, by any means. But I’m just not interested, personally.
Albeit, I’d obviously expect the sports to be planning to ensure they see themselves through until business as usual in 2021.

Heard from a good source today we might be playing behind closed doors soon with SKY offering money.

To me the streaming idea is cost prohibitive plus why would sky give up the rights to the sport at time they desperately need something to show

Sky are losing £millions as most people have temporarily suspended their sky sports subscriptions. As soon as live sport is available those subscriptions will automatically start again. They could also stream the other matches (other than the two or three contracted ones) on a pay as you view. Say they charge between £10 - £15 per game. That's a lot cheaper than actually attending, especially if you're a family.
Maybe they could find some way of giving the home season ticket holders free view for their games?

How are sky giving up the rights? They could still show their normal 2 or 3 games a week whilst the clubs charge fans to watch games via a stream?

Edit: basically what Rogues said.

because sky have the right to show all the games so they would be giving up the rights if they allowed any club to show them, they could do it but could ask for millions back

They don't show all the games though, do they? They could still pick the games they want to show and the clubs stream the rest which sky can show highlights of. Which is exactly what they do now.

no they dont they chose the games they want to and they have paid for the right to be the only people to do so, clubs could show the games 24 hours after sky as thats what wigan do and must be the legal time frame, sky havent paid 100's millions of pounds just to let other people do it for free

If allowing clubs to show their own (non-sky) home games means that sky will actually have a game to show and clubs won't go bust I'm sure a compromise could be made.
Clubs could agree to advertise sky as part of their streams.
Obviously sky are in a better position financially than SL to get through this, but they're also desperate for live sport to resume so people will resume their sky sports subscriptions, so whenever we resume both sides will have to take a hit and make concessions or the pro game in this hemisphere will not survive.

The clubs become a rival to sky (no matter how small it is) the instant they start to strike out on their own.

And if for instance a streamed game is say at the top end of your range it have to be sky like quality because thats a serious chunk of change when most won't have a great deal of money to throw about.

Sky have paid serious money for the sport and have done untill is it June? so all talk of streaming is a little premature isn't it?

The season is as long as it is is because the majority of clubs require at least 14 home games to generate enough revenue to survive. If games are going to be played without a crowd (which they likely will be until the end of season at least then either clubs ask fans to give them the ticket money anyway, or they find an alternative, or be given freedom by sky to explore other options like streaming their home games, or sky or another messiah pulls a wad of cash out of thin air to help keep the game alive.