Maybe the pitch would be something we could develop as an advantage, the Atmosphere I can't remember when it was last like that at the stoop!

Didn't we have a 6 inch in-goal at Brentford?

When we only opened the East Stand and were half competitive. Now we are stuck with 2 stands that are half empty.

But the sun dave....what about the sun

The only reason I can see for the stands issue is cost! with the attendances we currently get what must that cover? not even the rent, thanks for the kindness of BSkyB it is the only thing which keeps rugby league alive!

So those first 90 years were all a myth then?

Are you talking pre Super League, when it was semi-pro and many of them worked down the pit or in the case of overseas players given jobs with companies having good connections to the clubs directors, after working a full day they then went to training and then it was a winter sport, yes also when they had to Win to get the pay which give them a little better life, instead of some of the over inflated wages paid to some average players in the game today? when the big Sky money came into the game, clubs gave away so much to these players instead of being spent on grounds which before Sky were dingy and ready for condemning? Yes that is what I was relating to.



The game is faster now and the players fitter, they play on grounds and pitches much better condition but take away the Sky money and compare the attendances then, I can remember standing on Central Park or sitting on one of the corner crowd terracing fences with 40,000 plus and Station Road for Great Britain matches, so all is not perfect now!

We were both taking about Rugby League. You were talking nonsense.

For once, I can't see what is wrong with what jaybs is saying. Spot on for me.

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.