Tony Smith was right - RL needs to stop messing around with too much. By all means reduce the number of playoff spaces. But the only rationale to reduce to 12 teams is if 14 is unsustainable financially or competitively.

On the field, the massive hit to SL of the loss of NRL players as a MAJOR source of players was always going to take years to work through, as in the end their replacements can only come from juniors. The flow from the NRL started drying up 3-4 years ago. Even if every SL club had the best junior development systems in place, we were never going to be able to seamlessly move from dependency on 6 or more overseas players at every club overnight.

I just don't think that there's enough evidence yet as to how many reasonable quality teams are sustainable with full dependence on junior development. We're probably two or three years away from being able to give a rational answer to that question - even then we'll still have some clubs way behind the rest.

Interested in what happens to the play offs.
Also, as mentioned above how to Bridge the financial gap between the sl and championship.
I would have the same cap for both levels but include something life the 50% rule to stop clubs overstretching

The only way you could even begin to bridge the gap for me is run 2 leagues of 10, with P&R increase the cap and quota levels in the bottom league to more than they have now but less than SL, enough so that players can go full time.
For this to happen though the big wigs need to start attracting money to the game, if they're struggling why not incentivise anyone to bring it in.
Some random stranger not interested in RL told for every £ he attracts to the game he'll get 20% of any profit that brings to the game. Sounds far fetched but WE NEED TO ATTRACT MONEY. Until we do that the system we have now is the only sensible one we have.

As I'm sure Leeds are. They'll more than likely have to reassess their policy of finishing 5th given the likelihood of regular season fixtures becoming meaningful.

which is all to the good of the competition. This is caveated on the premise that the new play-off system will give clearer benefit to those finishing higher up.

Dual-registration can now follow franchising/licensing and go and do one.

Who voted for this? The same chairmen that have run their clubs into the ground with chaotic mis-management?

Frankly, it's a complete red herring.

More players at grass roots, better coaching, better marketing, better financial management, better sponsorship deals and a meaningful international presence. These are the things that will make the game stronger, not tinkering about with numbers of teams in the top flight.

I suspect they will all light up cigars, sit back and slap themselves on the back at a job well done. And we'll be back here in 8 years time increasing it to 14 teams.

It's lucky that the man behind these plans has personal experience of bankrupting longstanding clubs while trying to avoid relegation. It'll come in handy.

Which way did GH vote? And why?

Bingo!

I think people, especially those constantly telling us what ever GH does is right, should walk away from their computers. Rumours are that GH is the chief instigator of these plans, especially the split to 8 teams, and the one pushing it.

rlHere's the opinion of your intelligent and articulate herorl.

Very articulate.

I don't necessarily agree but when your as well fit as sinni you can talk people around.

Reading the interview with Sinfield on the BBC website, I would suggest that even more fuel is added to the fire on those rumours, and perhaps GH is the chief instigator.

GH was also a key player in support of franchising and a 14 team SL in 2009.

Will some teams risk breaking the SC next season in an attempt to avoid a bottom two finish?