If we don't have scrums I would want us to have a 7 on 7 play instead, the thing about scrums is that teams should be given the option of having them in the middle of the pitch, which is more favourable to most.

I'd happily substitute Huddersfield for Toulouse. And the only reason the game stagnates is because the SL clique prevent any outsider from accessing finances. SL is so predictably boring, but Leigh will sort that out.

You are way into Yawnion my friend. What you state is the reason Union is so slow. League is pace. Keep your scrums contested they cost that code 30 minutes of play every game.

I don't want scrums contested in RU, I want RU to rduce the numbers on the pitch and to get rid of the line-out.

WTF is this enen being discussed on a RL site,jog back onto a yawnion site!

The way we have our rucks is obviously very important as to how our sport looks. I think we should trial being able to pass off the floor, as long as it's done immediately after the tackle is done, and we could then have a larger variety in the time a ruck takes.

The SL " clique" are given the SKY money to show English SL games to English fans. SKY have been kind enough to allow the Catalans experiment and the Toronto experiment. This is at a cost to fans of English clubs who could have those SL places..

Outsiders Toronto had access to £30,000,000 of their own money more than any other club had access to. They wasted the lot.

That’s contradictory Donny. Quite clearly the promoted side would be short by £800k.

Why?

If you are referring to Leigh having to make up £800K themselves to have the same funding as the other SL clubs next year then I don't know. But I can hazard a guess that the 11 clubs have done their budgets and were short of £800K across the board, so maybe they thought it a good idea to take that from the "new clubs" SKY share.

Is that fair? Do the SL clubs care if it is not? Does Derek Beaumont care now he has the prize of an SL place?. Maybe the [i"we can't pay a full share[/i" of SL money was to shut skint clubs out of applying - which didn't work. Maybe they were going to share the SKY money so all 12 clubs would take a hit of £66,000 each, and then clubs started saying no to that.

Maybe we had 11 clubs whose owners aren't an old pals club and can never agree on anything so we got the usual fudge.... Your thoughts?

Interesting - do you have the lineouts stat as well?

If the offerings for next year in the Rugby World (I'm sure you don't take the line these are two totally separate games) are two types of game, one where the action is almost continuous and another where the action is broken up by periods of inactivity organising for players to stand straight in lines, or pack down square an upright just to re-start the game after a ball has gone out of play, being knocked on, ............then we at least have a far superior product again?

I say this because pre 1996 union was awfully tedious, and TBF they did modernise it, but it seems we have pulled away again.??