Why are you equating a 10 team league with a 4 team league?

Because its called Super League

The assumption is there are only 4 genuine ' Super ' clubs for Super league , but you knew exactly what I meant , didn't you

Really? So you'd be quite happy to reduce the league by 4 teams? (Let's say Wakey Salford, Cas and Widnes ) - so that the pool of quality of the players available would increase to the benefit of the remaining teams as their is supposedly not enough talent to go around.

All I was suggesting is why not go the whole hog and field 4 teams of superstars and play in a league of their own? Each team plays each other 5 times - Job's a goodun!

Have you seen how many clubs are in the Championship and Championship 1?

But it's okay, nobody cares about us.

That's 12 teams, and they have a neccesity to play more games than is the case in Super League.

Not sure chopping to 10 would be quite the solution (although I'd be prepared to try it). The risk of moving to 14 teams was well worth a chance but sadly I don't think it's worked out IMHO. Go back to 12 sides for the time being but slash the quota and tighten up the loopholes. The Championships could certainly do with the couple of extra sides this would provide, for a start.

SL is going with 14 clubs for the next three years and thereafter.
Fewer clubs is not what we need but more players.
Until clubs are made to depend on their own youth development and not buy in a squad then RL will struggle in this country.
The 8 club trained should go from being in the squad 25 as now to being in the game 17. Also increase that by 1 per year for the following 3 years.
That would concentrate club's minds on developing their own players.

Expansion is the ultimate aim for Super League , so I will go for .

LONDON. DUBLIN , HUDDERSFIELD , WIGAN, PARIS, CATALANS , CRUSADERS ,
CUMBRIA ,NOTTINGHAM , EDINBOROUGH.

ATM: Hull FC
St Helens
Wigan
Warrington
Leeds
London
Catalans
Huddersfield
Bradford
Widnes

But if (or when) Cas/Salford get their new grounds, then I'd prefer them over the last 2 on the list.

It does make me laugh when players & coaches come out and say lets just drop the league to 10 teams. The 'RL community' were up in arms when 13 Crusaders players were told to find a new club at the last minute but these same people are happy as Larry to say to 70-100 full time players that they've now got to find new jobs as your clubs are deemed not worthy of super duper league. How many of these clubs would stay full doubt time? I doubt many, if any could afford to.

The RFL have made a rod for their own backs. Clearly the comp needs something happening to make it more competative but I don't think just culling 4 teams is the way to go. If we had 14 team spending the full cap with youth development at the forefront of any teams operation then in a few years the league would even itself out, it's just how the RFL and the clubs themselves go about bringing in the finance needed to do this.

depends on which 4 teams we were getting rid of, and what we were turning away. Im not sure we gain anything from having Wakefield in SL at the moment.

But those two things aren’t the same, which was the point I was making. It is idiotic to pretend that a 10 team league and a 4 team league are the same thing. They aren’t. Its like arguing why have 14 teams, why not 20? Why not 30? Why not 200? Why not 1? Because apparently however many clubs we have in a league is exactly the same which is clearly nonsense.

The 10 strongest off the field otherwise what's the point?

Wigan
St's
Leeds
Hull
Hull KR
Hudds
Warrington
Bradford
Les Cats

one of the remaining to make up the numbers

The "spend the full cap" thing is all smoke and mirrors.

Yes, we would ideally have clubs spending the same but you also need the players to justify it. It is no good having Wakefield / Quins announce "we're spending the full cap" unless we have enough quality players to merit that sort of spending. Otherwise, we are just inflating the salaries of average and poor players.