Depends if by contrast they are getting more due to the extra games.

Of course they are not going to accept less, but then again in relation to what they can earn elsewhere in other sports (union), they are already getting in underpaid for some players.

They're underpaid compared to other sports but that is because RL doesn't have the money other sports has. If we went for a shorter season, say 22 rounds play each team just once at home and once away, then clubs finances will be hit and the same players who wanted a shorter season will go elsewhere (RU, NRL, possibly retirement for a 9-5 job) as the clubs struggle even more than they do now to offer good money.

Reducing games (and income) for the whole league because it MIGHT help England against Australia is wrong. 5 of the WC squad play in the NRL, with Tomkins and Mossop joining that makes 7. In a year or two it could be 10.

Financially hitting clubs just so 14/15 players out of the whole league will be 4 games fresher? Daft idea.

You reduce the games to ensure the player performance is at top level, not just to aid England, if the players are at top fitness we have a better competition, which in turn will generate income through increased attention.

More games weakens that performance level, weakens the product on offer, and in turns devalues it's income potential.

Are you seriously suggesting that players are not capable of performing at a high level 30 times a year? Most of the forwards only play 50-70% of the game time - if they can't something is seriously wrong with their preparation.

There are more games overall, but elite players are only going to be affected marginally, principally because the play off weeks off are gone. Hardly make or break if this is the players union's main complaint.

Previous structure:
27 regular season. Up to 4 play off games. Up to 5 CC games = 36.

New structure:
23 regular season games. 7 8/8/8 games. Up to 2 play off games. CC entry is according to reports one round later so 4 = 36.

Have you ever seen a player performing at a high level for 30 plus times per year? That would be more apt. They can't seem to string more than five or six games at the level to produce a real quality product.

I would rather see less games of a better quality product, than 30 plus games of averageness.

So we have a 10 team SL home and away - no play offs the season would run from March to July!! the game would never get any exposure the season would be too short. The teams would be all be bust and if you are right you would still have 13 games of very average product.

Maybe they should just make the CC the play off i.e. the top eight teams play three rounds the GF is the CC final - that way the season is a maximum of 26 games - hate the players to be over-worked!!

Increase the number of games for clubs and internationals but limit the amount of domestic games per season that an England player can play.

That has its issues.

Would clubs be financially reimbursed for having chunks of their SC not allowed to play all the time?

If based on who gets put into a season starting England ETS then going on last years Leeds had 8 players in that squad, close rivals like Saints and Hudds only had 2.

What happens if players lose form and don't make the end of season internationals? McGuire and JJB both were in yet neither made the WC squad, so we'd lose 2 players for nothing. Wire had 6 yet only 2 made the WC squad. Would clubs and fans accept losing some of their key players for no reason?

Would Sky have liked the likes of Tomkins, Hall, Roby, Sinfield, Chase etc. possibly unable to play due to limitations put in place to help England in a tournament they weren't even showing. What happens if through a bad injury crisis you are down to the bare bones but your England guys have played too much already?

The Super League already has taken a hit by losing some of its best players to the NRL or RU in the past as well as not getting as talented a player coming over from the NRL nowadays. To lessen the amount of times you'd see the better individuals in the competition for a quite small International scene doesn't make sense.

I know in Cricket and RU players can miss huge chunks of club games because of International duty. But those sports don't just have an International scene realistically made up of only 3 teams who can compete.

Whilst the WC was great, we have to remember our limitations there. We shouldn't try and weaken club rugby for the sake of a few Internationals matches between 3 teams. The current players might not be as fatigued if we cut their work load down but soon the quality of players coming through would be lessened.

If England did win a tournament against Australia, then what? You've attracted the attention to the sport you've hoped for a long time but then you go into a club season where you don't see the best players as much thus not promoting the game as well and unlike the other sports mentioned above we'd have to wait 12 months to see the England team play against the Kiwis and Kangaroos again. And it would be no good saying we'll increase Internationals or try doing something mid-season because it has to be a 2-way street and the NRL and rugby league Down Under is doing fine without that and doesn't need it.

That makes the competition unfair - successful clubs are penalised for having the best players. It will just encourage clubs to have more overseas players. In cricket Yorkshire invest in developing Joe Root/Johnnie Bairstow etc only to find when they are the finished article they can't select them. The international game in Cricket/Rugby Union is a huge money spinner and underpins the sport - that is not the case in RL.

No need to go from one extreme to the other, there is an inbetween.

As I said a few pages ago, for me the answer is the structure they are putting in place, without the extra silly seven games for the top 8 clubs. Just keep it has a play off from there.

I would also have one weekend in the season put aside for a full competition nines tournament, hopefully getting media on board to televise.

Just apply that restriction to all players, say all players can play 25 games plus play offs and that's it, however you want to do that is up to you

Doesn't that just spread any already small talent pool even further?

The easiest way to reduce the number of games played by players is to reduce the number of games. Ideally, we'd be filling the resulting free time with a solid, commercially viable international series, but I accept that we're a long way from that.