There's been talk recently that it might be a good idea to cut SL back to 12 or even down to 10 teams. But it isn't always explained why people want it.

Is it to divide the TV money between fewer recipients, increasing there financial stability of the surviving clubs? The Hull KR chairman has on occasion talked about it in these terms.

Is it, conversely, to reduce fixtures and reduce the physical strain on players? But that would presumably be at a cost, financially, through reduced gate receipts and possibly TV money. Is that where Jamie Peacock is coming from? There are also ways of cutting games without reducing the number of clubs.

Maybe fewer games would be more intense, and draw in bigger crowds mitigating the financial loss - Tony Smith has suggested that. I'm dubious, but even if he's right, more intense play will undo much of the good of playing a handful fewer games, I'd assume.

Fewer makeweight teams is another argument, when there are blow-out score-lines. That there isn't enough talent to go around. But fewer teams means fewer chances for young homegrown players, and the RFL has gone to considerable lengths to convince us that the players are out there, if clubs are willing to give them a shot.

I can see logical arguments - but they contradict rather than reinforce each other.

Are you in favour of cutting the size of SL, and if so why?

No I'm not in favour. I understand the arguments for it but I don't think the financial issues can be resolved without playing at least some clubs 3 times, which I don't like the idea of.
I also think 14 teams is a good size for a serious professional league. Much smaller and it's basically a mini-league.

I think the RFL should come out and say the league will be fixed at 14 teams for the next 5 (or so) licence periods, then everyone knows where they stand.

In my opinion stick at 14 and concentrate on improving the worst performing clubs.

I don't quite understand this argument, less clubs = less games = less TV games. Why would Sky pay the same money for less? It the same as gate receipts, there will be less cash in the door and so less money to go around.

If there's an argument for players to play less games, address this through squad rotation, OK this may give a cap issue or it may mean some younger players get the chance to play more.

The ONLY reason for reducing the number of teams in SL is to give the Lucky 10 clubs more money.
Smaller leagues have been tried in different sports (and the national leagues) and they dont work, due to quick repetition of fixtures.
12 clubs as a top division was just about ok, but this is the lowest sensible figure.
The greed of some of the big clubs really hacks me off.
Have to agree with "Him" that the RFL should tell us their plan for the short, medium and long term and not just make it up as we go.

Fewer games, means less through the turnstiles over the course of the season if average crowds are the same. People won't pay the same for a 11 game season pass, as they do for a 13 game one.

I think TV revenue would hold up okay - they're happy with a couple of games a week whether it is 2 from 7, 6 or 5.

I can see an argument for 12, but 10 just seems stupid. I'd much rather go up to 16 than down to 10 - cutting the salary cap (per club) if necessary.

Dont think we should be cutting the cap, it actually needs to be increasing year on year, but teams settling for a lower share of TV money (or negotiating a better TV deal) is an option.
This obviously flies in the face of what the big boys want, so it wont be popular.
There is of course the issue of keeping hold of the best league players, especially from the yawnion lot and this is perhaps why certain clubs would like a larger slice of the cake, although there is extra cash in the s/c for international players.

The ' rationale ' is that the clubs at the bottom are not getting any better , it was hoped that when everybody is in a nice shiney new stadium [ apart from Leeds and Bradford , who will remain where they are in relative squalor 3.986328125:5