Why cant they bring back the good old 'open age a team' ????

the aussies do it 'and its a good competition too', so why cant we ?

Does it matter if your 19 or 35 ??

That would make the combined brain power at Red Hall explode..too fecking simple that is.
1st team..self explanatory
A team..not in the named 19, players coming back from injury, upcoming youngsters on fringes of first team..no age limit up or down
Colts (18s & under)
And if three teams travel on the same coach to play the same team at all levels then all the better keeping costs down. i know this isn't always feasibe but I reckon these types of things are what hugely increase costs for running these teams

No what's too simple is just saying "I don't understand why we can't have an A-team".
An A-team requires open age players.
If we're to have open age players of a requisite standard they have to be full time.
If they're to be full time that opens up a number of issues. Most notably how clubs are to find the money for, say, an extra 10 full time players.
There's also then the issue that if these full time players are good enough to slot into a SL first team every now and again then they're probably good enough to be playing every week in the Championship first team or even for bottom SL clubs. So how do the A-team keep these players?
There's also then the salary cap issue. Which would be very tricky for A-team players.

An A-team worked in the semi-pro era when those players could be part time but I don't see how it would work, even if the money issue was sorted, in a pro era other than the NRL way with feeder clubs.

And the costs of running academy teams and different age groups aren't affected by putting an extra bus on once every 2 weeks. You probably wouldn't fit 1st team and another team on one bus anyway. You certainly wouldn't fit 3 teams on.

It wasn't the RFL that scrapped Alliance teams...it was the clubs themselves. Same with the move from U23's with over age players allowed, to U19's.

Is there anything wrong in the game that the RFL don't get blamed for.

Charnley has not played for Workington ever. In fact, Workington's DR players from Wigan have mainly been Jack Murphy (17 appearances), Connor Farrell (13 appearances), Lewis Tierney (9 appearances) and Greg Burke (6 appearances). Which, correct me if I'm wrong, are entirely the type of player which are meant to be benefitting from DR ?

I still don't understand the rationale behind the new structure.
Had it explained to me numerous times but still confused.
Is this the best structure that the RFL could come up with? (genuine question for all those that feel the RFL get too much stick)

The RFL didn't come up with the structure. They engaged KPMG to review the game overall and this structure is what KPMG proposed as being the best "whole game" solution. The proposal was then voted on by the clubs themselves.

So what. The point was DR exists because SL clubs do not run U20's or upwards which would mean there was no need to disrupt championship clubs or players. The decision was made purely with the aim of saving money.

You said if the Championship clubs can run u20's why can't the SL clubs. They run one academy team same as the Championship clubs do.

It was partly to save money it was partly that DR was supposed to take the place of the SL's u20's to provide a much higher standard for the better academy prospects to play in and, crucially, to play against men. That's why the u20's and u18's were then merged into an u19's with no overage players to provide a place for those academy players who still needed time playing against their own age group. There would still be a need for DR's even with an u20's. Because the u20's still doesn't get the better academy players playing against men. Which is what's needed for their development.

Give DR's time to settle and clubs time to work out their relationships with each other and I reckon they can work.

Seriously, what don't you understand? It's not difficult.

I don't think that people don't understand the new structure per se, but it's hard to understand why it was implemented and how it will work.

Why on earth a team playing a full super league season then maybe finishing just out of the top 8 then has to go on and play a Micky mouse "middle 8" with potentially 2-4 semi pro teams is astonishing.

Especially after we have had one of the most competitive seasons in a very long time. We had the top 6 all with a chance to get top spot and teams competing for play offs all the way down to 12th.

This season had really put a rubber stamp on the franchising idea... It has worked!!

Only thing we should have done is drop London and replace with Leigh.

Then rebuild London and work with Toulouse to make a 16 team league.

It's laughable that they have been banging the expansion drum for so long, then to turn completely 180 to go back to 12 teams.

Was a disaster for Swiss soccer and rejected by Scottish football. Change for changes sake

U20's allows overage players to play, U19's doesn't. No matter how much you egg it up SL clubs attempts to save money meant players coming back from injury now use Champ clubs, and following a major gaffe, injured overseas players had nowhere to play as their VISAs wouldn't allow it. Shows that the only thought that went into the academy changes was how much money can we save.

Anyway sorry guys but this is slightly off the thread topic.

Go on then, give me an explanation.