FORUMS FORUMS






RLFANS.COM
Celebrating
25 years service to
the Rugby League
Community!

   WWW.RLFANS.COM • View topic - How do cutbacks save economies?
::Off-topic discussion.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Star3605No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Jul 09 201212 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
20th May 16 14:5420th May 16 10:16LINK
Milestone Posts
2500
5000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Leeds
Signature
Someday everything is gonna be different, when I paint my masterpiece
----------------------------------------------------------
Online art gallery, selling original landscape artwork
----------------------------------------------------------
JerryChicken - The Blog
----------------------------------------------------------

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:29 pm  
Ajw71 wrote:
It's a fact that Labour operated a deficit during the boom years. They didn't fix the roof when the sun was shining. They claimed to have ended boom and bust, their own minsters admitted there was no money left.

This is Labour's economic legacy. This is why the economy is still in such bad shape and this is why the British public will not trust them to run the economy again in a very long time.


I'll ask you again, who on earth is spoon feeding you this dogma ?

Go back and read the two posts that I suggested you read earlier, no-one is asking you to admit that you're wrong or that you're being a bit of a fool for persisting with the spoon-fed dogma, but just for your own education, read those ONS stats, digest them, and then lets not have any more silly statements eh ?
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Player Coach14302No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Aug 14 200519 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
11th Sep 18 15:2520th Sep 15 06:47LINK
Milestone Posts
10000
15000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
On the Death Star Awaiting Luke.
Signature
If you only knew the POWER of the dark side.

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:17 pm  
Ajw71 wrote:
Another one of the pack, all we need now is TB, Big Graeme and Him to have a full house.

Strange how you all consider yourselves to be powerhouses of political debate but stay on a socialist forum in your safe zone where you have your pack to back each other up and your strange views are rarely challenged.

Why not test yourselves and expand your horizons a bit?

Didn't want to touch my post then?
Ajw71 
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Player Coach1978No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 23 200619 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
19th Dec 23 20:2714th Dec 19 14:13LINK
Milestone Posts
1000
2500
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:04 pm  
JerryChicken wrote:
I'll ask you again, who on earth is spoon feeding you this dogma ?

Go back and read the two posts that I suggested you read earlier, no-one is asking you to admit that you're wrong or that you're being a bit of a fool for persisting with the spoon-fed dogma, but just for your own education, read those ONS stats, digest them, and then lets not have any more silly statements eh ?


What dogma is this you keep talking about?

Let's look at what i said:

1. Labour built up a deficit in boom years - FACT - There was no recession from 02-07 but no surplus.
2. Labour didn't fix the roof when the sun was shining - FACT - They did not operate a surplus during 02-07 when there was no recession.
3. Brown claimed to have ended boom and bust - FACT - He stated this in the Commons.
4. Labour's own minster said there was no money left - FACT - A note was left to this effect.

What are you trying to argue, that I am lying and these are not facts? Please explain?
Dally 
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman14845No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Dec 22 200123 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
23rd Oct 21 15:0122nd Jul 21 09:42LINK
Milestone Posts
10000
15000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:27 pm  
Ajw71 wrote:

Brown claimed to have ended boom and bust - FACT - He stated this in the Commons.


I think he claimed to have ended Tory Boom and Bust. In other words, Labour Boom and Bust is deemeed somehow better! That just about sums up this "debate" - some people think Labour's mismanagement of the economy is somehow superior to the Coalition's mismanagement of it. It's a joke. All our leading politicians are useless and incompetent the fact that people distinguish so heatedly between Labour and Tory incompetence and incompetents shows what unthinking sheep they are.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
All Time Great47951No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 10 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
6th Aug 17 19:0327th Jul 17 17:56LINK
Milestone Posts
40000
50000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Die Metropole
Signature
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller

"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant

"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde

The Voluptuous Manifesto – thoughts on all sorts of stuff.

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:56 pm  
Ajw71 wrote:
What dogma is this you keep talking about?


'It woz Labour wot done it!'

That dogma.

As has been explained to you, by a number of people, with lots of relevant stats (particularly courtesy of Sally C) Labour behaved as every other government has done in living memory – and beyond – in running a deficit.

That is what governments do.

That is what governments of any hue do – in years of boom, in years of bust and in between.

What you are attempting to do, for blatantly obvious ideological reasons (if we can insult the concept of ideology by using that word), is to ignore this massive contextual fact and pretend that running a deficit was unique to labour in a period of 13 years.

It was not. That is a fact.

And it's why a substantial number of people on here, of varying political beliefs themselves, are laughing at you.
Ajw71 
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Player Coach1978No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 23 200619 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
19th Dec 23 20:2714th Dec 19 14:13LINK
Milestone Posts
1000
2500
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:24 pm  
Mintball wrote:

As has been explained to you, by a number of people, with lots of relevant stats (particularly courtesy of Sally C) Labour behaved as every other government has done in living memory – and beyond – in running a deficit.

That is what governments do.


But not Labour from 1997 until 2001.

Do other Governments claim to end boom and bust too?

Mintball wrote:


What you are attempting to do, for blatantly obvious ideological reasons (if we can insult the concept of ideology by using that word), is to ignore this massive contextual fact and pretend that running a deficit was unique to labour in a period of 13 years.

It was not. That is a fact.



I've noticed that making up what you think people are saying, instead of what they are actually saying, is a common trait of your condescending personality.

Mintball wrote:

And it's why a substantial number of people on here, of varying political beliefs themselves, are laughing at you.


:lol: No it's just the same old socialist clique.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
In The Arms of 13 Angels26578
JoinedServiceReputation
Mar 08 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
6th Jul 17 23:1930th Apr 17 15:32LINK
Milestone Posts
25000
30000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
On the set of NEDS...
Signature
Image


ebay's Rugby League Bargains ¦ Boost Your eBay Sales ¦ Recommended Amazon Stuff ¦ Get a Free Ink Cart!!! ¦ Quins RL T-Shirts, BRAND NEW DESIGNS

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:30 pm  
Ajw71 wrote:
:lol: No it's just the same old socialist clique.


HOUSE!!!
Him 
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Board Member14970No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Jun 19 200222 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
16th Nov 21 22:467th Nov 21 09:30LINK
Milestone Posts
10000
15000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Campaigning for a deep attacking line

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:59 pm  
LOL
I really love ajw's ability to totally misunderstand the word "fact".
If it was all Labour's fault and nobody will trust Labour with the economy for a long time (as he stated), then why are Labour ahead in the polls? Then again asking ajw about polls is probably not a good idea since he hasn't a clue how they work. But then he's clearly demonstrated he has no idea how an economy is run or how government debt and deficit work.

I'm sure he will just keep posting irrelevant, unsubstantiated twaddle along with the word "fact" in big letters next to it and then make some ridiculous "socialist" comment and pretend he's a master debater. Though I think the rest of us know which 2 letters to remove from that title to more closely describe ajw.
Ajw71 
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Player Coach1978No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 23 200619 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
19th Dec 23 20:2714th Dec 19 14:13LINK
Milestone Posts
1000
2500
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:01 pm  
My position is this:

Ajw71 wrote:
But the deficit would not have been as great if Labour had not inexpeicably build up a significant deficit in the 'boom' years. Spend Spend Spend.



Good article here....

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainm ... -disaster/

"But going into the crash the government was spending too much. Spending had risen dramatically from 2001 and the government was recklessly running deficits at the top of a boom. That doesn't mean that increased government spending caused the crash. Of course not. Instead, what should be obvious, is that it left the country poorly prepared for a downturn when it turned up.


"If spending had been at more sensible levels before the crash, the fall off in revenues would not have had such a dramatic impact and the deficit would have been smaller, meaning that the amount being added to the national debt would have been less than it turned out to be from 2008. If government spending had been considerably lower in the boom years, both the deficit and the debt could have been lower than they are now in the bust"
My position is this:

Ajw71 wrote:
But the deficit would not have been as great if Labour had not inexpeicably build up a significant deficit in the 'boom' years. Spend Spend Spend.



Good article here....

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainm ... -disaster/

"But going into the crash the government was spending too much. Spending had risen dramatically from 2001 and the government was recklessly running deficits at the top of a boom. That doesn't mean that increased government spending caused the crash. Of course not. Instead, what should be obvious, is that it left the country poorly prepared for a downturn when it turned up.


"If spending had been at more sensible levels before the crash, the fall off in revenues would not have had such a dramatic impact and the deficit would have been smaller, meaning that the amount being added to the national debt would have been less than it turned out to be from 2008. If government spending had been considerably lower in the boom years, both the deficit and the debt could have been lower than they are now in the bust"
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Club Coach16271
JoinedServiceReputation
Oct 12 200420 years72nd
OnlineLast PostLast Page
23rd Nov 24 21:1723rd Nov 24 19:55LINK
Milestone Posts
15000
20000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Signature
Challenge Cup winners 2009 2010 2012 2019
League Leaders 2011 2016

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:04 pm  
Ajw71 is just backtracking now to try and say he was right in what he claimed by clinging to four 'facts' which are relatively meaningless. Two of them are just quotes that Labour ministers said, they are not measures of economic performance. The other two appear to be the same 'fact': ie there was no recession from 2002 to 2007 but there was no surplus.

There was no recession from 1992 to 1997 either and there was no surplus. Fact. Growth rates were bigger from 1992 to 1997 and deficits were also bigger. Fact. On the grounds Ajw is arguing, John Major's Conservative government comes out much worse.

In practice governments very rarely run surpluses, John Major's government never ran one, neither did Gordon Brown's. Margaret Thatcher's ran two years of surplus in eleven, and Tony Blair's ran four years of surplus in ten which is probably the best record ever for a British PM.

The reason why surpluses are not usually run is that unless you have no investment projects that can be run, they are not the best use of funds, because you can generate better longer term returns through borrowing to invest. Like any business, if the government can borrow at a rate of 1% and uses this to fund a project with returns at 2% then that's a profitable decision.

The argument about 'saddling future generations with the bill' is misleading because you have to take into consideration the higher returns that yield from the projects government invests in now. Most things government invests in, education, health, transport infrastructure etc create a more skilled and mobile workforce that will generate economic growth in the future hence higher tax revenues. As long as the returns are higher than the rate of interest the government is borrowing at then the future generations are in profit after the bill has been paid back. Add to this the fact that the majority of UK government debt is held within the UK so when the government pays it back this goes back into the domestic private sector and recycles around the economy: when it pays to foreign debt holders that money leaks out of the system but the repayments that go to UK debt holders end up getting spent (and coming back to government through taxes) in the UK.

Where deficits become a problem is when the government's ability to pay its debts comes into question hence nobody will lend to it any more. If you have a deficit between outgoing spending and incoming tax revenues and need to cover that through borrowing and nobody will lend then you run into a cash flow problem and this is where you have to turn to the IMF as lender of last resort. The IMF will usually provide the money but on their terms so you lose control of your own budget then.

This issue is called fiscal sustainability and the best guide to sustainability is to look at the figure of debt stock as a proportion of GDP. If it is rising year after year then you have an unsustainable situation because at some point it is going to become so large lenders will start worrying that the government can cover it and hence demand higher rates of interest to lend to them, which in turn makes it harder to meet the repayments and so a debt spiral starts. Greece is in this situation now. If the debt stock to GDP is constant or falling then you are on a sustainable path.

There's a well known rough and ready formula for fiscal sustainability which is

(T2 - G2)/GDP2 = (r-g) (B1/GDP1)

the number after the letter refers to the year (ie 1 for Year 1 - this year, 2 for Year 2 - next year)
T stands for taxation, G stands for government spending, r stands for rate of interest on government debt, g stands for growth rate of GDP

The left hand side is called the primary surplus which is the surplus of tax minus spending before you take into account interest payments on previous debt stock. If the left hand side equals the right hand side you are on a sustainable path. If the left hand side is smaller than the right hand side then your debt stock will grow relative to GDP and in the long run this is unsustainable. If the left hand side is bigger then your debt stock will shrink relative to GDP and this is the best position to be in.

The key conclusion to draw from this is that when r-g is negative, ie the annual growth rate exceeds the rate of interest on government debt, then you can run a primary deficit and still be sustainable. A government which generates returns on its borrowing that exceed the rate of interest on its borrowing can run a deficit forever and never run into debt problems.

Back to the Treasury pocket databank http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pdb.pdf and p14 and look at the fourth column on the second half of the page, net public sector debt (HF6X). This is the stock of debt as a proportion of GDP - what the country owes as a proportion of its income. As you will see this was quite low at the start of the 1990s, 27.1%. This rose steadily during Major's government to 42.4% by 1997, as a result of those large deficits Major's government was running. Despite strong growth rates our deficits were large enough that we were on an unsustainable path.

From 1997 to 2002 we were on a healthy and sustainable path, the debt ratio had been reduced to 29.7% and then it started to rise again and was 35.9% by 2007. This was not in the long term a sustainable situation but not one to raise the alarm bells, and it was still considerably lower than the debt ratio left at the end of the Conservative government in 1997.

Then as a result of the financial crisis and collapse in GDP that shot rapidly from 36.7% in 2008, to 43.5% in 2009, to 52.5% in 2010. This is where the Coaltion took over. The attack from the Conservatives that Labour "wrecked the country's finances" is based on the acceleration in debt ratio in these past two years.

Since then we have gone to 60.5% in 2011 and 66.0% in 2012, so the acceleration in unsustainabilty has increased at a similar rate. So if we take the crude argument that the incumbent government is entirely responsible for the state of the public finances then the Coalition has ruined the public finances in the past two years as much as Labour did in the previous two.

As well as having the Fiscal Mandate that I talked about in an earlier post where the Chancellor promised to have a budget balance on current budget (ignoring investment spending) by 2015, there is a Supplementary Target which is that the debt ratio should be declining before 2015, ie we should be back on a sustainable path. The Office for Budget Responsibility are going to release their next estimate in December about whether he is on target for that and its expected they will say he will miss it.

There has been a recent and influential paper on the effect of growth and debt ratios (by Reinhart and Rogoff) that comes up with 90% as the real key tipping point. At ratios below 90% debt ratios don't seem to have major adverse effects but once you pass 90% the burden starts to have negative effects on economic performance and restrains growth in the long run.
Ajw71 is just backtracking now to try and say he was right in what he claimed by clinging to four 'facts' which are relatively meaningless. Two of them are just quotes that Labour ministers said, they are not measures of economic performance. The other two appear to be the same 'fact': ie there was no recession from 2002 to 2007 but there was no surplus.

There was no recession from 1992 to 1997 either and there was no surplus. Fact. Growth rates were bigger from 1992 to 1997 and deficits were also bigger. Fact. On the grounds Ajw is arguing, John Major's Conservative government comes out much worse.

In practice governments very rarely run surpluses, John Major's government never ran one, neither did Gordon Brown's. Margaret Thatcher's ran two years of surplus in eleven, and Tony Blair's ran four years of surplus in ten which is probably the best record ever for a British PM.

The reason why surpluses are not usually run is that unless you have no investment projects that can be run, they are not the best use of funds, because you can generate better longer term returns through borrowing to invest. Like any business, if the government can borrow at a rate of 1% and uses this to fund a project with returns at 2% then that's a profitable decision.

The argument about 'saddling future generations with the bill' is misleading because you have to take into consideration the higher returns that yield from the projects government invests in now. Most things government invests in, education, health, transport infrastructure etc create a more skilled and mobile workforce that will generate economic growth in the future hence higher tax revenues. As long as the returns are higher than the rate of interest the government is borrowing at then the future generations are in profit after the bill has been paid back. Add to this the fact that the majority of UK government debt is held within the UK so when the government pays it back this goes back into the domestic private sector and recycles around the economy: when it pays to foreign debt holders that money leaks out of the system but the repayments that go to UK debt holders end up getting spent (and coming back to government through taxes) in the UK.

Where deficits become a problem is when the government's ability to pay its debts comes into question hence nobody will lend to it any more. If you have a deficit between outgoing spending and incoming tax revenues and need to cover that through borrowing and nobody will lend then you run into a cash flow problem and this is where you have to turn to the IMF as lender of last resort. The IMF will usually provide the money but on their terms so you lose control of your own budget then.

This issue is called fiscal sustainability and the best guide to sustainability is to look at the figure of debt stock as a proportion of GDP. If it is rising year after year then you have an unsustainable situation because at some point it is going to become so large lenders will start worrying that the government can cover it and hence demand higher rates of interest to lend to them, which in turn makes it harder to meet the repayments and so a debt spiral starts. Greece is in this situation now. If the debt stock to GDP is constant or falling then you are on a sustainable path.

There's a well known rough and ready formula for fiscal sustainability which is

(T2 - G2)/GDP2 = (r-g) (B1/GDP1)

the number after the letter refers to the year (ie 1 for Year 1 - this year, 2 for Year 2 - next year)
T stands for taxation, G stands for government spending, r stands for rate of interest on government debt, g stands for growth rate of GDP

The left hand side is called the primary surplus which is the surplus of tax minus spending before you take into account interest payments on previous debt stock. If the left hand side equals the right hand side you are on a sustainable path. If the left hand side is smaller than the right hand side then your debt stock will grow relative to GDP and in the long run this is unsustainable. If the left hand side is bigger then your debt stock will shrink relative to GDP and this is the best position to be in.

The key conclusion to draw from this is that when r-g is negative, ie the annual growth rate exceeds the rate of interest on government debt, then you can run a primary deficit and still be sustainable. A government which generates returns on its borrowing that exceed the rate of interest on its borrowing can run a deficit forever and never run into debt problems.

Back to the Treasury pocket databank http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pdb.pdf and p14 and look at the fourth column on the second half of the page, net public sector debt (HF6X). This is the stock of debt as a proportion of GDP - what the country owes as a proportion of its income. As you will see this was quite low at the start of the 1990s, 27.1%. This rose steadily during Major's government to 42.4% by 1997, as a result of those large deficits Major's government was running. Despite strong growth rates our deficits were large enough that we were on an unsustainable path.

From 1997 to 2002 we were on a healthy and sustainable path, the debt ratio had been reduced to 29.7% and then it started to rise again and was 35.9% by 2007. This was not in the long term a sustainable situation but not one to raise the alarm bells, and it was still considerably lower than the debt ratio left at the end of the Conservative government in 1997.

Then as a result of the financial crisis and collapse in GDP that shot rapidly from 36.7% in 2008, to 43.5% in 2009, to 52.5% in 2010. This is where the Coaltion took over. The attack from the Conservatives that Labour "wrecked the country's finances" is based on the acceleration in debt ratio in these past two years.

Since then we have gone to 60.5% in 2011 and 66.0% in 2012, so the acceleration in unsustainabilty has increased at a similar rate. So if we take the crude argument that the incumbent government is entirely responsible for the state of the public finances then the Coalition has ruined the public finances in the past two years as much as Labour did in the previous two.

As well as having the Fiscal Mandate that I talked about in an earlier post where the Chancellor promised to have a budget balance on current budget (ignoring investment spending) by 2015, there is a Supplementary Target which is that the debt ratio should be declining before 2015, ie we should be back on a sustainable path. The Office for Budget Responsibility are going to release their next estimate in December about whether he is on target for that and its expected they will say he will miss it.

There has been a recent and influential paper on the effect of growth and debt ratios (by Reinhart and Rogoff) that comes up with 90% as the real key tipping point. At ratios below 90% debt ratios don't seem to have major adverse effects but once you pass 90% the burden starts to have negative effects on economic performance and restrains growth in the long run.
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 198 guests

REPLY

Subject: 
Message:
   
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...

Return to The Sin Bin


RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
Recent
Rumours and signings v9
MadDogg
28927
Recent
Shirt reveal coming soon
BarnsleyGull
82
Recent
Season pass roll call
Dave K.
48
Recent
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
Cruncher
10
Recent
Film game
karetaker
6121
Recent
Open Trials
BigTime
4
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
1m
Squad 2025
faxcar
76
2m
Rumours and signings v9
MadDogg
28927
2m
Game - Song Titles
Boss Hog
40876
3m
BORED The Band Name Game
Boss Hog
63342
3m
ALL NEW 49ERS ERA LEEDS UTD THREAD
leeds owl
2661
4m
Planning for next season
LeythIg
209
6m
Out of contract 2025
ratticusfinc
76
7m
Squad numbers 2025
imwakefieldt
68
8m
IMG scores
imwakefieldt
293
16m
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
Cruncher
10
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
Hopes and Dreams for a New Season
Septimius Se
1
TODAY
Open Trials
BigTime
4
TODAY
Shareholder/Fans Forum
Wollo-Wollo-
2
TODAY
Elliot Michella extends contract
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
Christmas Party Night B Vue tonight cancelled
Dunkirk Spir
3
TODAY
Doug Laughton
rollin thund
12
TODAY
Sports Personality of the Year
rubber ducki
17
TODAY
Forget-me-not Childrens hospice
H.G.S.A
1
TODAY
All time academy produced Super league era side
rollin thund
5
TODAY
Wigan warriors 2022 away shirt
WWste
4
TODAY
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
Huddersfield
5
TODAY
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
Cruncher
10
TODAY
Rule Changes
Rugby Raider
5
TODAY
Player Contracts
Trojan Horse
6
TODAY
Fans Forum 12 Dec 11th
Dunkirk Spir
3
TODAY
Laurie Daley returns as NSW origin coach
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
2025 Challenge Cup
Wanderer
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS
Captains Challenge for Televis..
286
England Women Las Vegas train-..
449
Opening Championship and Leagu..
615
2025 Betfred Super League Fixt..
1732
Magic Weekend 2025 - Back To N..
1012
England Beat Samoa To Take Tes..
1678
England's Women Demolish The W..
1533
England Beat Samoa Comfortably..
1758
Operational Rules Tribunal â..
1493
IMG-RFL club gradings released..
1728
Wakefield Trinity Win Champion..
2277
Hunslet Secure Promotion After..
2482
Trinity Into Play Off Final Af..
2722
Wigan Warriors Crowned Champio..
2275
York Valkyrie Win Back to Back..
2517
RLFANS Match Centre
Matches on TV
Thu 13th Feb
SL
20:00
Wigan-Leigh
Fri 14th Feb
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Castleford
SL
20:00
Catalans-Hull FC
Sat 15th Feb
SL
15:00
Leeds - Wakefield
SL
17:30
St.Helens-Salford
Sun 16th Feb
SL
15:00
Huddersfield-Warrington
Thu 20th Feb
SL
20:00
Wakefield - Hull KR
Fri 21st Feb
SL
20:00
Warrington-Catalans
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Wigan
Sat 22nd Feb
SL
15:00
Salford-Leeds
SL
20:00
Castleford-St.Helens
Sun 23rd Feb
SL
14:30
Leigh-Huddersfield
Fri 28th Feb
SL
20:00
Huddersfield-Hull FC
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Salford
SL
20:00
Leigh-Catalans
Sat 1st Mar
SL
14:30
Wakefield - St.Helens
SL
21:30
Wigan-Warrington
Sun 2nd Mar
SL
15:00
Leeds-Castleford
Thu 6th Mar
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Leigh
Fri 7th Mar
SL
20:00
Castleford-Salford
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Mens Betfred Super League XXVIII ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wigan 29 768 338 430 48
Hull KR 29 731 344 387 44
Warrington 29 769 351 418 42
Leigh 29 580 442 138 33
Salford 28 556 561 -5 32
St.Helens 28 618 411 207 30
 
Catalans 27 475 427 48 30
Leeds 27 530 488 42 28
Huddersfield 27 468 658 -190 20
Castleford 27 425 735 -310 15
Hull FC 27 328 894 -566 6
LondonB 27 317 916 -599 6
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Betfred Championship 2024 ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wakefield 26 1010 262 748 50
Bradford 27 703 399 304 36
Toulouse 25 744 368 376 35
York 27 655 469 186 30
Widnes 27 561 502 59 29
Featherstone 27 634 525 109 28
 
Sheffield 26 626 526 100 28
Doncaster 26 498 619 -121 25
Halifax 26 509 650 -141 22
Batley 26 422 591 -169 22
Barrow 25 442 720 -278 19
Swinton 27 474 670 -196 18
Whitehaven 25 437 826 -389 18
Dewsbury 27 348 879 -531 4
Hunslet 0 0 0 0 0
RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
Recent
Rumours and signings v9
MadDogg
28927
Recent
Shirt reveal coming soon
BarnsleyGull
82
Recent
Season pass roll call
Dave K.
48
Recent
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
Cruncher
10
Recent
Film game
karetaker
6121
Recent
Open Trials
BigTime
4
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
1m
Squad 2025
faxcar
76
2m
Rumours and signings v9
MadDogg
28927
2m
Game - Song Titles
Boss Hog
40876
3m
BORED The Band Name Game
Boss Hog
63342
3m
ALL NEW 49ERS ERA LEEDS UTD THREAD
leeds owl
2661
4m
Planning for next season
LeythIg
209
6m
Out of contract 2025
ratticusfinc
76
7m
Squad numbers 2025
imwakefieldt
68
8m
IMG scores
imwakefieldt
293
16m
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
Cruncher
10
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
Hopes and Dreams for a New Season
Septimius Se
1
TODAY
Open Trials
BigTime
4
TODAY
Shareholder/Fans Forum
Wollo-Wollo-
2
TODAY
Elliot Michella extends contract
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
Christmas Party Night B Vue tonight cancelled
Dunkirk Spir
3
TODAY
Doug Laughton
rollin thund
12
TODAY
Sports Personality of the Year
rubber ducki
17
TODAY
Forget-me-not Childrens hospice
H.G.S.A
1
TODAY
All time academy produced Super league era side
rollin thund
5
TODAY
Wigan warriors 2022 away shirt
WWste
4
TODAY
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
Huddersfield
5
TODAY
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
Cruncher
10
TODAY
Rule Changes
Rugby Raider
5
TODAY
Player Contracts
Trojan Horse
6
TODAY
Fans Forum 12 Dec 11th
Dunkirk Spir
3
TODAY
Laurie Daley returns as NSW origin coach
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
2025 Challenge Cup
Wanderer
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS
Captains Challenge for Televis..
286
England Women Las Vegas train-..
449
Opening Championship and Leagu..
615
2025 Betfred Super League Fixt..
1732
Magic Weekend 2025 - Back To N..
1012
England Beat Samoa To Take Tes..
1678
England's Women Demolish The W..
1533
England Beat Samoa Comfortably..
1758
Operational Rules Tribunal â..
1493
IMG-RFL club gradings released..
1728
Wakefield Trinity Win Champion..
2277
Hunslet Secure Promotion After..
2482
Trinity Into Play Off Final Af..
2722
Wigan Warriors Crowned Champio..
2275
York Valkyrie Win Back to Back..
2517


Visit the RLFANS.COM SHOP
for more merchandise!