16 teams, 30 rounds. Limit players to (say) 24 SL games a season (not including play offs, WCC, CC etc), bans count as playing. Therefore your players aren't playing too much, we have more room for expansion with added teams, would force reserve players into sides, making matches more competitive as teams could be tempted to "rest" some of their best players against "weaker" teams, bringing the standards closer. Reduces burnout.

I'm assuming Jamie Peacock would of course be prepared to take the approximate 27% pay cut due to playing vastly less games? I'm also also assuming Jamie Peacock would be happy to see half the clubs go bust within a couple of seasons and RL get even less media exposure that present? A 10 team league is the most stupid suggestion I have ever heard, it's not viable and the season would be so short it would be difficult to market the game at top level. Funny how the NRL manage just fine with 15 teams?

Where would the extra three rounds go? You can't play mid-week games as players need time to recover in between games. I'd stick to the number we have now (as we clearly need it) but just add a cap to the number of games.

Peacock is probably coming at this from the POV of England test players, who play more games, on average, than any of the big 3 in Rugby League AND the SANZAR nations in Rugby Union AND the Home Nations in Rugby Union.



SL clubs won't rest players from SL games, because it could mean the difference between winning and losing games, and making the SL finals or not. That stance is understandable.



You can reduce the number of SL games, but make up the shortfall by allowing SL clubs to enter an existing competition - the Northern Rail Cup.
SL - 16 teams, 17 rounds (one being the Millennium Magic). A team plays ever other team once, plays two teams a second time.
NRC - English SL clubs join English Championship and C1 teams. 4 pools of 8, 10 regular rounds, where a club could play every other in its pool once, and one from the other 3 pools. If test players are on representative duty for a particular weekend, they would not play NRC that weekend. Welsh and French clubs could form a similar competition with French 1st and 2nd division clubs.

Not including pre season or Challenge Cup, SL clubs get 13 home games, Championship clubs get 15 home games.

If every other team had to rest players then what is the difference? The only difference is one team apparently has a better "manager" than another. Coaches would have to be more strategic about when to play players and when to rest them (i.e. play them in the big games). It would also see teams blooding more youngsters.

I don't think that stance is understandable at all.


That would lose tonnes of money. You wouldn't get a good TV deal on a shorter SL, and you definitely wouldn't make up the windfall with an inferior competition.
And Welsh and French clubs? There's only one pro Welsh club outside SL, and most pro French clubs are tiny.

I'd have a 16 team two conference league

The ESL and the WSL (East and West). 8 teams in each. Play each team in your conference home and away and the other conference teams once, either home or away on a rotating annual basis. Playoffs feature 5 teams in each conference playing each other with the 4 semi finalists going through to an inter conference semi final and then GF.

Advantages: supports local rivalary and may engender an eventual county of origin with meaning, increases SL without adding too many games, more interest in playoffs, less travelling for fans.

Disadvantages: Costs more money with extra teams. One conference may be alot stronger than the other meaning better teams miss the playoffs, may be seen as too "American". Fewer games than currently (although the extended playoffs will make that up for some clubs)

Asking clubs to stand down players has the potential to be hugely problematic, inconsistent and unfair. E.g. there is potential for huge disparity in the class of opposition - resting players against the 2009 Crusaders is a totally different prospect from rest them against Leeds or Saints. In the NRL, clubs re forced to stand down players from club fixtures before a State of Origin match. In recent years, Brisbane Broncos fixtures have deprived of sometimes up to 8 or 9 players to Origin, and Brisbane invariably suffer a slump mid-year, every year. The NRL and clubs do not want a reduction in the overall number of regular round fixtures, it has unanimously voted against every year, yet clubs and fans complain every year when their club stands players down.



If the RFL structured their broadcast deals carefully, they could gain revenue from three offerings – the first tier professional competition, the second tier, and the representative program, then they could have the potential to attract support that can make up for any potential shortfall from a shortened SL and expanded NRC. A stronger representative program, where England and GB are allowed (with the buy-in of the the clubs) the preparation and resources to compete realistically, has the biggest potential to command national attention and generate the most revenue. It has been shown in the past in RL, and shown in the present in other sports like Rugby and cricket.

Other Rugby governing bodies successfully run second tier club competitions, resting their international players for large tracts of those competitions, with the support of their clubs/franchises. The Rugby Unions of England, Wales, NZ and South Africa all do so. In England and Wales, the rlLV Cup (Anglo Welsh Cup)rl] is staged during November tests and during the Six Nations, so it does not include players selected in the England/Wales matchday test squads of 22 over the course of the entire competition.

The South African RU (SARU) stage two elite professional tournaments - the SANZAR Super 14, and the rlSouth African Currie Cuprl. Both are very well supported. The Bulls (and CC counterpart the Blue Bulls) hosted the finals of each competition respectively in Pretoria and attracted sell-out crowds of 60,000 spectators both times. The Super 14 is staged early in the year, and Springboks play in all 13 regular, a semi final and final. The Currie Cup starts during the test season. Obviously Springboks included in the matchday squad of 22 for tests in that period (e.g. the Tri Nations) miss CC matches, but they return for certain matches, including the semi final and final. After a few years of Super Rugby, SARU differentiated the Super franchise brands the traditional Currie Cup provinces, as shown here (not saying this should be done with English RL) rlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_14_franchise_areas#South_Africarl Similarly, New Zealand Rugby Union teams also participate in two competitions - the SANZAR Super 14 and rlAir NZ Cup (New Zealand National Provincial Championship)rl. The Christchurch-based Crusaders may participate in Super 14, whereas the Christchurch based Canterbury Rugby (the senior Union in the Crusaders catchment area) will participate in the Air NZ Cup. All Blacks captain Richie McCaw is the captain of both the Crusaders and Canterbury Rugby. Similarly, All blacks vice captain Rodney So’oialo is captain of the Wellington based Hurricanes (during the Super 14) and the Wellington Lions (in Air NZ Cup).

If those bodies can create such a structure, then RFL has the potential to do so, if it and its constituents form a united approach which is geared towards the success of the national team. Neither the NZRU nor SARU have ever attracted a match day attendance nearly as large as England/GB RL.



Catalan Dragons, Toulouse Olympique, Wrexham Crusaders, South Wales Scorpions would join 9 Elite One clubs (UTC left out) and 9 Elite Two Clubs in an NRC style competition.

I try and take my lead from your very informative but fact-less posts. Garbage is difficult to recycle into common sense though.

A SL with fewer teams need not result in a smaller TV contract, if clubs had a bye week when they're not on SKY. I'm sure it could be worked out such that the season was just as long as it is now with the same number of televised games but fewer matches actually played by each club.

It's still a daft idea though.

If Peacock said that, then he simply echoed what has been said in both hemispheres and both codes of Rugby. If the RFL want to beat the Kangaroos in a tournament, then the physical and emotional welfare of elite British players like Jamie Peacock should be of paramount importance. As Quins RL coach Brian McDermott said in the article rlLearning Lessons from Unionrl



Prominent figures in sports medicine have examine the issue of player welfare in the Rugby codes around the world. Elite teams like the Wallabies, All Blacks and Springboks closely monitor and carefully game time, rested and rotated elite test players to refresh and prepare the for major tournaments. Such strategies propelled them to success in tournaments AND World Cups. Meanwhile England RL national team coaches do not control player appearances for their clubs, and they subsequently perform poorly in the national team.

NZ Warriors (and former All Blacks) Doctor John Mayhew has said that to preserve the physical, psychological and emotional welfare of players, to avoid the risk of physical/psychological burnout, prevent injury, and maintain a high quality in performance, a reasonable workload for RL and RU players is 30 matches per season. South African Sports Science Institute and University of Cape Town Professor Tim Noakes advocates a player be limited to 23 to 28 matches in a season, preferring a ceiling of 2000 minutes or 25 full games. The RFU and Premier Rugby (club body) agreed in their Long Form Agreement to restrict test players to a maximum 32 matches per season.

In 2005 and 2008, English RL test team averaged the highest number of games per player of any elite national team in either code, with a test player participating in 32.95 games per season. Players like Keith Senior and Rob Burrow playing 41 matches in 2008, Paul Wellens playing 41 matches in 2004, many more than any Kangaroo, or nearly all Kiwis, then it is no surprise England/GB lags behind.

Aah, sorry I honestly hadn't seen your post first, was just trying to see the response to an idea I had heard, that I personally quite liked. Personally I would introduce the new scheme with the view to reduce or even remove the playoff system, which seems to add extra games to the best players on top of the CC whilst they complain about fatigue. I appreciate the view of Sky on the matter and the occasion that the GF is, but for a competitive international scene, with hopefully not too many negative effects on the domestic competitions, I do like the idea I heard, although it does require more thought obviously.

Quite simply we dont have enough money in the sport

The clubs need more games to finance themselves [ Which it seems isn't even enough at the moment ] , but the top players need less games to be competitive internationally

Unfortunatley success means the best players play more games , that is quite simply a fact of life

So sorry Jamie , either live with it or go and get another job at a less successful club

A successful national team would generate more money for the clubs than the clubs themselves could do. The clubs would need to take a chance to allow this to happen. International RL attracted these record crowds in the UK in recent timesUnfortunatley success means the best players play more games , that is quite simply a fact of life

So sorry Jamie , either live with it or go and get another job at a less successful club'"

Peacock couldn't go to RU.
Completely the wrong build for any position, the Farrell issue if you will