I recognise that for some it's a lot of money and I'm not deriding anyone, I just find the 'season ticket holders should get advantages' concept a bit of a nonsense. At some clubs, a walk up fan who attends 10 of the 13 games but doesn't have a ST actually brings in more cash than a ST holder who attends all games. It's the attitude that ST holders are the 'most important' fans that I disagree with.

I'd love to be at every game from the first till the last, league or cup, but it's just not possible.



Like I said, I'm more than willing to give it a go.

If come the final whistle in the Grand Final I'm not convinced then I'll put my argument forward. I just don't see the sense in moaning about it before it's even half way through.

bar the choosing your opponent gimmick, the play-off system is 'traditional' rather than a new innovation, as prior to 1973 we had play-off system already in place to determine the league champions.



just a boring point

Couple of things.



a) Lets see if either Hudds or Kr get turned over this week, that would answer your argument re: the advantages of finishing first/second.



b) Defend the 8 team system..okay, how pathetic was the 6 team system where you'd have the 'dress rehearsal' every year.. tbh i didnt watch it last year because the game the year before bored me senseless. Yes 8 teams is a little much from a 14 team league but for example Bradford and Warry didn't qualify, 2 decent sides, im fairly sure given a couple more years we could support an 8 teamer, teams finishing very close on points etc



c) I stated on another thread that initially I thought the AFL system (the one we're using) was the right choice, however I now accept it probably would have been better to use the NRL system. 7th and 8th would of had to go to Leeds and Saints to advance and it gives 1 and 2 an easy ride to week 3. However in this system the freak result on week 3 is really highlighted however if say Leeds lost to Catalans and then Hull kr both at home would they deserve to be in the final.

It also means the chances of repeated games e.g. dress rehearsals like we imo saw on fri and sat are nil as there's guaranteed to be at least one team per game HAS to win. Id love to dicuss the pro's and cons of this system more but that isnt really the issue.



d) I said on the other thread, you solve the attendance problem by knocking a 3rd off for season ticket holders home and away, it goes into a central pot anyway and i guarantee you'd of added another couple of thousand to each game

In Australia everyone is brought up to believe that playoffs are the best way to determine the champions. Over here we are brought up to believe that finishing top of the league is the only way that champions should be decided, even though I would say that sports who operate that way are in the minority.

on sky sports news the other day the presenters were all laughing because even they had no idea who would be playing who.



i beleive one of them said "this system is like latin, only a few understand it and non really care".

Only those of us who know nothing about the history of the game. The 'first past the post' was only a brief experiment for 20 odd years. On the other hand, we've used play-offs to decide the champions for the remaining 70-odd years of our history.







Only because they're fools who and spent all week's build-up saying "and on Sunday we'll tell you exactly who's playing who next week" like it was some mystery, before realising it was obvious.

I would suggest its the hapless presenters that are stupid and not the playoff system.

So after years of Wigan winning everything, then the 'big 4', we now get to a situation where teams like Rovers & Hudds are in with a shout of glory and in true RL style it is somehow a 'joke' or 'a farce' or 'lowering standards'.



I genuinely believe some RL fans are not happy unless they are complaining about something...there can be no other explanation. And anyone who doesn't agree is somehow a RFL puppet or Richard Lewis' best mate.





Lets look at football: AFC Wimbledon are (I think) now one division below the Football League. If they were to gain promotion back into the FL, would this mean soccer standards were lower? Because you can guarantee you will only hear stories about their brilliant revival, not about how Barnet or someone have had to move out to accomodate them.



Incidentally, I met a AFC Wimbledon fan in Edinburgh this year (not at a game, in the pub after) and he was a great admirer of RL. Not necessarily a fan, but as he put it "it's real, it's supported by real fans". Clearly some non RL people think more of the game than some RL fans.

Hasn't that got more to do with them being vacuous bores who can't make it onto a decent television channel?

Leeds chief executive Gary Hetherington says he will help decide the defending Super League champions' semi-final opponents.



[urlhttp://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/09/09/22/RUGBYL_Leeds.html[/url



'[iSunday's historic press conference will be broadcast live on both Sky Sports News and the BBC at 1.30pm.[/i'



Impressive television attention.

I find myself hoping it'll be like that Pokeymon thing, and Hetherington shouts "Skints! I choose you!" and then throws one of those little balls at Mick Potter, which Rob Burrow then falls out of.



Potter could lob one with Eastmond in it.



It'll be great. [iWith the pokey and the mon, and the .[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHFYJO9v5Xg.[/url.[/i