Surely it's an unfair comparison because it's adding two teams together to compare against one. And in fact, City have been well supported despite a lack of success, particularly at home, over recent years.
Could be, but Trumpton has explained many times the economics behind that. The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
It's also worth noting that Rovers have sold out of season memberships for 2025 and you have to go on a waiting list for 2026 season if you want one and anyone doesn't renew- fans want to be entertained - they also want to watch a winning team playing well - City were winning last season but Rosieball was ****e to watch and Walterball was even worse and we were losing - at least Selkes has started to turn things around - unless City start to compete at the top end of the table next season, people will start to drift away , the same if the produce ****e on the pitch - its OK bring a fan / supporter and sticking at it but if you're fed ****e you don't have to eat it especially when someone else is serving something more edible
The presence of two rugby league teams benefits both clubs. If there were only one team, such as a centrally or west-based team like City, in my opinion, it’s unlikely they would draw combined attendances equal to those of the two existing teams. Each team’s local base helps sustain support, even during difficult periods. Additionally, the rivalry and distinct identities of the clubs contribute to retaining fan loyalty on both sides of the city. Rivalry keeps both teams' supporters embattled and interested. Politically, the two teams draw a lot more water than just one would. While a hypothetical single RL team might match/beat City’s attendance figures in dire times, such as the troubled 1990s for example, I think it'd highly unlikely to do so consistently; and in my opinion, a 'successful' City would always do better than a 'successful' unitary RL side
Another great result for Rovers... nilling Leigh is some feat, but thats 3 consecutive times they have done it to them.
are you sure?? Who finished below them? I can’t remember My recollection is they finished bottom but I don’t follow it that closely
Surely that would depend on how many teams would go down if it was 2 team to be relegated instead on none they would have gone down
It's been one up, one down for the past decade. Hull wouldn't have got relegated as were higher than London...
One up one down only shows how little competition there is and none up none down only emphasises that
Rugby League was formed as a breakaway from Union in 1895. 22 teams from Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cheshire. 130 years of existence and it still has a very regional bias across the counties involved in the breakaway league.
