Anyone who watched the St Helens v London game last night would surely agree with cutting the number of teams in Super League. Saints are currently third in Super League and won 30-0 last night despite an absolutely awful performance. Saints wouldn't have scored against a proper team last night, which says it all about London's performance. There was absolutely no intensity and little effort from either side to do anything bar going through the motions and trying to play safe, by the basic rugby league handbook. In terms of entertainment it was probably the most boring sporting event I've ever witnessed.

There just isn't enough talent to support 14 teams, the calibre of young player going into the game isn't good enough. Once in Super League the youth systems and coaching aren't sufficient and the intensity of competition is really poor. With the salary caps in the NRL and Union competitions on the increase, the top layer of talent is largely going to be sliced off the top of Super League, meaning the standard drops even further. Reducing the number of teams would mean more competition for places.

Have we the balls to do 2x10.
If we have it would for me be :
SL1.Bradford, Hull, Leeds, Saints, Wigan, Warrington, Catalans, London, Huddersfield, Wakefield
SL2. Cas, HKR, Toulouse, Leigh, Fev, Fax, Widnes, Salford, Sheffield and Barrow - possibly S Wales if in Swansea/Cardiff with backing.

27 games 6 team play offs over 3 weeks with 1&2 seeded. 1 up and 1 down.

It's baloney, sky would not pay as much for that format as they do the current setup. I know we're quite an impatient society these days, but give the franchising the opportunity to bed in and bear fruit, without suggesting endless ludicrous changes to the game every season.

I'm not sure about this whole issue. I'm sort of caught between two opinions. There clearly isn't enough talent to justify 14 teams, but Sky wouldn't wear a curtailed format I feel. It's a tricky one.

This !!! (including the P & R)but with London getting the chop and only the top 3 in SL1 making the playoffs, the team finishes top goes straight to Old Trafford with 2nd and 3rd playing (2nd place team gets home advantage)

You're kidding yourselves if you think a 10 team league is viable. How will clubs manage with only 9 home games and fewer playoff games? Most clubs are losing money as it is. And let's not pretend it would be a 2 tier SL, it wouldn't. It would be a 10 team SL and a 10 team 2nd Division/NL1/Championship just with 4 of the worst SL teams in it.

14 teams is the way forward for now, it provides a reasonable number of games without repeat fixtures and restricting the pathways for and money spent on young players by reducing the number of clubs is not the way to increase the quality of players in the league.

Yip, 27 games equals 9 at home................. granted it would be 13 and a Magic weekend.

I would expect you to be highly critical of the RFL in the farcial way they have messed about with Championship 1 then, currently only 8 teams , how will they manage?

I agree to a point, it should have been sorted earlier and I would prefer there to be a minimum of 12 teams in a league. Instead of a 14 team Championship and 10 team C1 I'd have gone with 12 in each. But you also can't directly compare a semi-pro league to a fully pro league.

As long as we're alright Jack, they're doing the right thing. Nothing to see here

True, its much easier for full time teams