Quote BrisbaneRhino="BrisbaneRhino"Star signings that strutted their stuff in the 80s? Well, Meninga, Grothe, Kenny, Sterling etc from Australia, Schofield, Hanley, Offiah etc from GB, plus oodles of union 'stars' from the mid-80s onwards.'"
So for a whole decade not too many real game changers. I cannot think of "oodles of Union stars from the mid-80's onwards" than have been signed for English RL. This source was beginning to dry up for real class by the mid-80's.
Quote BrisbaneRhino="BrisbaneRhino"IIRC average crowds back then were well below today's levels. If you were to trawl back through the old Rothmans yearbooks I have no doubt you'll find some minor effects when a new player first appeared, but as I said, the effect was generally very short-lived. '"
It is nothing to do with average crowds. The point is do real classy stars with game changing abilities have a positive effect of attendances. I maintain that they do. In most cases these sort of stars are signed by the best supported clubs which is why they remain the best supported clubs. If these same clubs were to change policy and not sign top stars then it is highly likely that their attendances would drop eg Wakefied Trinity, Widnes & Salford.
Of course it is great if you can produce your own world class stars but even at Leeds where we have enjoyed a unique period of success with a hard core of home produced stars we still needed to make signings like Webb and Lauitiiti and without them would probably not have achieved the same success or the same attendances. eg IMO we would not have won one of our championships without having Buderus in the playoffs.
You must also consider that positive effect I mention can not always be judged by extra average crowds but sometimes is would have prevented lower average crowds.
Would you have prefered Leeds had not signed Webb, Ali, Hanley, Grothe and Schofield etc? and do you believe that they were a waste of money?